ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/28

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Meskarian v Council

(Case T-71/12)

2012/C 109/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen's Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul paragraph 13 of Table A of the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1) and to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 (2) in so far as they apply to the applicant;

— Declare Articles 19(1)(b) and 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant;

— Declare that the annulment of the contested acts has immediate effect, notwithstanding Article 60(2) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union lacks competence to impose an asset freeze and travel ban under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) in a situation which is internal to the European Union.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the criteria for designation under Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human and fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the defendant in violation of its procedural obligations and the applicant’s rights of defence.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that in so far as either Persia International Bank’s or Bank Mellat’s respective applications for annulment of their respective designations is successful, the applicant’s own designation must be also annulled.

(1) Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11)

(3) Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

(4) Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/30

Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)

(Case T-77/12)

2012/C 109/60

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wahl GmbH (Unterkirnach, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenacta Group SpA (Azzano S. Paolo, Italy)

Form of order sought

— Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889;

— in the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889 in relation to registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 7;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wahl GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘bellissima’ for goods in Classes 7 and 8 (application No 8406704).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tenacta Group SpA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘bellissima IMETEC’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 (Community trade mark No 4534889).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/22

Action brought on 9 February 2012 — IRISL Maritime Training Institute and Others v Council

(Case T-56/12)

2012/C 109/48

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran), Kara Shipping and Chartering GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany), Kheibar Co. (Tehran, Iran), Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran), Fairway Shipping Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and IRISL Multimodal Transport Co. (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: F. Randolph and M. Lester, Barristers, and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11), insofar as they concern the applicants;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law, alleging that in including their names in the lists enclosed to the contested Decision and Regulation, the Council has:

— failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons;

— failed to fulfil the criteria for listing, and/or committed a manifest error of assessment in determining that those criteria were satisfied in relation to the applicants and/or included the applicants without an adequate legal basis for doing so;

— failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and right to effective judicial review; and
—

Annul Commission Decision C(2011) 9992 of 22 December 2011 reducing the assistance from the Cohesion Fund granted to the following projects: ‘Measures to be undertaken to implement the 2nd phase of the master plan for urban solid waste management in the Autonomous Community of Extremadura’ (CCI No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.020); Outfall: ‘Middle basin, Getafe and lower basin of the Arroyo del Culebro (Tagus basin-Wastewater drainage)’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.002); ‘Re-use of treated water for the irrigation of green spaces in Santa Cruz de Tenerife’ (CCI No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.003) and ‘Technical assistance for the study and drafting of the project to supply water to the Mancomunidad de Algodor and to increase that supply’ (CCI No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.040);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 200/17

Action brought on 25 April 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

(Case T-183/12)

2012/C 200/36

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol).

Form of order sought

By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the decision dated 16 February 2012 of the European Police Office (Europol) whereby it awarded to the company Capgemini Nederland BV the framework contract in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104;

— order Europol to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which the award to them of framework contract would have brought, which they estimate at EUR 161 887, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment; and

— order Europol to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, because Europol altered in the course of the tendering procedure many of the award criteria in relation to the assessment both of the technical and financial offers of the tenderers, blatantly infringing the applicable provisions of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (1) and the Implementing Rules 2342/2002 (2) and settled case-law.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law when it carried out the compatibility test under Article 106(2) TFEU since it failed to draw the necessary consequences from the finding that the public service compensation to TV 2 had been granted in violation of the second and of the fourth Altmark conditions (Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg, ECR [2003] 7747). 1.1. As regards the interrelation between the second Altmark condition and Article 106(2) TFEU, the applicant maintains that: — the transparency requirements stated in the second Altmark condition are also inherent in the test carried out by the defendant under Article 106(2) TFEU; — the defendant already requires compliance with other purely formal requirements in order for Article 106(2) TFEU to be complied with; — Article 106(2) TFEU already contains a requirement of transparency and the presence of certain structural safeguards; — the second Altmark condition is already reflected in various Commission Communications and Decisions concerning the applicability of Article 106(2) TFEU — also in the field of public service broadcasting; and — there is no convincing reason why the defendant should not, in the present case, take into account its own interpretation of Article 106(2) TFEU in its various Communications and Decisions, in particular when the Commission’s interpretation is derived from developments in case law. 1.2. As regards the interrelation between the fourth Altmark condition and Article 106(2) TFEU, the applicant maintains that: — it would have detrimental consequences to competition in the market not to consider the efficiency of the public service broadcaster for the purpose of applying Article 106(2) TFEU in the absence of a public tender; — the harm to competition would be particularly significant in the broadcasting sector since all costs incurred by a public service operator may be characterised as additional public service costs that may be compensated by the Member State, and where there is no obligation to examine if the costs result from inefficient management or from the public service obligation; — public service compensation may therefore be used as de facto rescue aid or operating aid, allowing a failing firm to continue its operations instead of being restructured or eliminated; — an efficiency test does not make Article 106(2) TFEU a ‘dead letter’ since the Commission may, depending on the characteristics of the case, approve compensation which exceeds the costs of an average, well-run undertaking; and — the aim of Article 106(2) TFEU, as interpreted in the light of the Amsterdam Protocol, is not to shield a particular public service broadcaster from the rules of competition but to protect the freedom of Member States in defining public service missions and to ensure that the citizens receive public services at the least cost to society.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/27

Action brought on 2 March 2012 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

(Case T-105/12)

2012/C 133/54

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Samoni and N. Dafniou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— grant the application for annulment;

— annul the contested decision of the Commission;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Hellenic Republic seeks the annulment (under Article 263 TFEU) of Commission Decision 1472708 of 3 January 2012‘relating to continued payment by the Hellenic Republic of the daily penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-65/05’, in so far as making of the penalty payment is sought from 22 August 2011 onwards. Under the aforementioned contested decision, given that, according to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic appears not to have undertaken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05 and subsequently its second judgment in Case C-109/08, the Hellenic Republic is called upon to pay the sum of EUR 4 825 008 as a penalty payment for the period from 1 July 2011 until 30 November 2011.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

1. First, misappraisal on the part of the Commission, in relation to adoption by the Hellenic Republic of the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice The Hellenic Republic submits that the defendant appraised and interpreted incorrectly the measures adopted by the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment. The Hellenic Republic maintains that it has taken all the necessary measures to comply with the Court of Justice’s judgment in adopting Law 4002/2011 by which the contested articles of Law 3037/2002 are repealed, in pursuance of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-65/05.

2. Second, exceeding by the Commission of its power The Hellenic Republic exceeded the limits of its mandate as guardian of the Treaty, since it did not confine itself, as required of it, to establishing whether or not measures for compliance were clearly carried out. Furthermore, it went beyond the limits of the Court of Justice’s judgments, given that the Hellenic Republic complied fully with those judgments.

3. Third, deficiency of reasoning on the part of the Commission In its decision contested by the Hellenic Republic, the Commission did not explain, and did not set out expressly, the reasons for which it sought the continued making of the penalty payment for the period after the adoption of Law 4002/2011, that is to say, from 22 August 2011 until 30 November 2011. The Hellenic Republic disputes that additional sum since it considers that it complied fully with the judgments of the Court of Justice once that law was promulgated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/30

Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-99/12)

2012/C 151/51

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first three of which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Cases T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council, (1) and T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (2)

The fourth plea alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the consequence of which is to distort competition both within the European Union and Syria and as between those two territories.

(1) OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.

(2) OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/11

Action brought on 18 May 2012 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM (Shoes with red aglets)

(Case T-208/12)

2012/C 209/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 February 2012 in Case R 1552/2011-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Other mark relating to shoes with laces at the end of which are red aglets, for goods in Class 25 — Application No 9 130 361

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/26

Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission

(Case T-227/12)

2012/C 227/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul a call for tender published on 3 April 2012, concerning preparation of technical documentation for the rail modernization project ‘Construction of new single track railway bypass of Niš, from Robna station to Sicevo station’ in accordance with EU interoperability standards, AGC, AGTC and the SEECP Agreement (OJ 2012/S 65-104847), excluding the applicant from participating in it;

— Award damages for the alleged pecuniary loss;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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 there was no legal ground for a priori exclusion of the applicant in participating in a call for tender in question since there was no conflict of interest;

2. Second plea in law, alleging — that the applicant’s exclusion from tender is contrary to IPA Regulation (1);

3. Third plea in law, alleging — that the conditions for awarding the contract were unlawful.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17.7.2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) (OJ L 210, p. 82)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 227/25

Action brought on 28 May 2012 — Ntouvas v ECDC

(Case T-223/12)

2012/C 227/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Ntouvas (Sundbyberg, Sweden) (represented by: E. Mylonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 27 March 2012 of the defendant to refuse the applicant access to final reports of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; and

— Order the defendant 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 infringement of an essential procedural requirement (obligation to state reasons), thereby infringing Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as: — The defendant stated only abstract and general reasons for refusing access to any, and all, reports it holds of audits carried out on ECDC by the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission; it moreover failed to demonstrate that an overriding public interest in disclosure did not exist; — According to settled case-law, reasons stated for refusing access to documents must be concrete and individual, as well as specific and describe effectively the eventual interest prevailing over the applicant’s right of access, while demonstrating the non-existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties (Art. 15(3) TFEU) and of a rule of law (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) relating to their application, as: — By failing to state appropriate and sufficient reasons for refusing to disclose the requested documents, the defendant also breached its obligation under Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 15(3) TFEU to grant the applicant access to the requested documents within 15 working days from registration of his confirmatory application.

(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)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/17

Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Energetický a průmyslový and EP Investment Advisors v Commission

(Case T-272/12)

2012/C 250/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Energetický a průmyslový holding a.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) and EP Investment Advisors s.r.o. (Praha, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Desai, Solicitor, J. Schmidt and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission Decision of 28 March 2012, relating to a proceeding under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1) (refusal to submit to an inspection) in Case COMP/39793 — EPH and Others;

— In the alternative, annul the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants in its entirety or reduce it to an appropriate amount;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted in violation of essential procedural requirements. In particular, the applicants submit that the contested decision was adopted in violation of their rights of defence, due to irregularities in the conduct of the inspection, notably because the Commission did not ensure that the relevant individuals had been properly informed of their duties in the course of the inspection nor of the consequences of non compliance.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission's finding that the applicants refused to submit to the inspection is unfounded and disproportionate. The applicants argue that the evidence put forward by the Commission for the unblocking of an email account or the diversion of emails to the applicants' server in the case at hand was not sufficient to substantiate an infringement of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. The applicants also argue that the inspection was not obstructed with intention or negligence by the applicants.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is adopted in violation of the ‘presumption of innocence’ principle insofar as the Commission approached the case with insufficient care and transparency, whilst there were indications that the Commission was negatively predisposed against the applicants, as a result of unrelated events that could not be attributed to the applicants.

4. Fourth (alternative) plea in law, put forward in support of the second form of order sought, in case the General Court decides not to annul the contested decision in its entirety, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law and infringed the principles of proportionality and due motivation when determining the fine.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L1, p. 1)