ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error in the premisses of the decision. The applicant claims, in particular, that the letter of 29 November 2019, sent by the Portuguese Government to the Council, contains two serious errors, as acknowledged by the Government itself. These were: (i) the reference to the Portuguese Government’s preferred candidate, made six times, as ‘Deputy Public Prosecutor José Guerra’ and (ii) the assertion that that prosecutor had an investigative and prosecuting role in an important trial relating to offences against the financial interests of the European Union.
Action brought on 17 June 2021 — ClientEarth v Commission

(Case T-354/21)

(2021/C 329/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth AISBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, B. Verheijen and T. van Helfteren, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 7 April 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, (2) related to the state of the implementation of the fisheries control in France and Denmark and on the existence of pilot cases and infringement procedures in the European Union relating to the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, (3) 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 that the defendant committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment resulting in the misapplication of the inspections, investigations and audits exception, pursuant to Article 4(2), third indent, of the Transparency Regulation and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and also alleging the infringement of the duty to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant incorrectly rejected the existence of an overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested documents.

(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).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 July 2021 — Sympatex Technologies v EUIPO — Liwe Española (Sympathy Inside)

(Case T-372/21)

(2021/C 329/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sympatex Technologies GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liwe Española, SA (Puente Tocinos, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union work mark Sympathy Inside — Application for registration No 16 286 106

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1777/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition against the European Union trademark application No 16 286 106 ‘Sympathy Inside’ (word mark) in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the court proceedings and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging, first, that there was no link between the assessment of the intrinsic qualities of the applicant's tender and its scoring under sub-criteria 1.1 and 1.2 set out in the contract notice and, second, that there was a breach of the principle of transparency.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 June 2021 — Hotel Cipriani v EUIPO — Altunis (CIPRIANI FOOD)

(Case T-358/21)

(2021/C 338/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hotel Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: M. Rieger-Jansen, D. Op de Beeck and W. Pors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Altunis-Trading, Gestão e Serviços, Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark CIPRIANI FOOD — European Union trade mark No 683 250

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2021 in Case R 1599/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— uphold the cancellation action in full and revoke the contested European Union trade mark;

— order EUIPO and any intervener who chooses to intervene to bear their own costs of the proceedings and to pay those of the cancellation applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 July 2021 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Save the Duck (ITINERANT)

(Case T-417/21)

(2021/C 357/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Save the Duck SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark ITINERANT — Application for registration No 17 946 853

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2021 in Case R 1017/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to grant European Union trade mark No 17 946 853 for Classes 18 and 25;

— order [EUIPO] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect exclusion of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal;

— Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the fundamental principle of non-discrimination in the EU law and Article 16(13) Regulation No 2019/943 were violated by giving the priority to congestion caused by loop flows in the determination of the costs burden in the methodology. The congestion caused by internal flows and by loop flows should be treated equally in the methodology. Placing the loop flows as first in the priority list of the polluting flows that caused congestion does not provide good incentives to operators to manage the congestion. The Board of Appeal of ACER dismissed the evidences of the applicant without any justification. The prioritization of the loop flows discriminated transmission system operators that made the investments required to develop their networks because those operators could be penalized for the residual loop flows for which they may be responsible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 July 2021 — Copal Tree Brands v EUIPO — Sumol + Compal Marcas (COPALLI)

(Case T-445/21)

(2021/C 368/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Copal Tree Brands, Inc. (Oakland, California, United States) (represented by: B. Niemann Fadani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sumol + Compal Marcas SA (Carnaxide, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark COPALLI — Application for registration No 17 955 499

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2021 in Case R 1581/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 25 May 2021 in case R 1581/2020-2;

— annul the decision of the Opposition division of 29 May 2020 in Opposition no. B3075279;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 6 August 2021 — France v Commission

(Case T-475/21)

(2021/C 391/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, T. Stéhelin, A-L. Desjonquères and G. Bain, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it applies a correction amounting to EUR 45 869 990,19 in respect of the ‘Voluntary Coupled Support’ for the reasons ‘Mesure 24 — année de demande 2017 (année financière 2018)’ and ‘Mesure 24 — année de demande 2017 (année financière 2019)’ for the financial years 2018 and 2019;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law against the contested decision.

According to the applicant, the Commission erred in law by misinterpreting Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013, (1) stating that legumes grown as part of a mixture including grasses could not be eligible for a voluntary coupled support scheme.

In the first place, Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 permits Member States to set up coupled support schemes for all common and established practices in a Member State in the protein crops sector, which includes legumes grown for their high protein content.

In the second place, Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1307/2013 must be interpreted as meaning that the protein crops sector includes the practice, common in particular in France, of growing mixtures of fodder legumes and grasses in which the former are predominant.

Accordingly, the Commission erred in law in stating, when adopting the contested decision, that the growing of mixtures of fodder legumes and grasses in which the former are predominant cannot be eligible for the voluntary coupled support provided for by Article 52 of Regulation No 1307/2013.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 August 2021 — DBM Videovertrieb v EUIPO — Nube (Lío)

(Case T-467/21)

(2021/C 382/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DBM Videovertrieb GmbH (Wesel, Germany) (represented by: J. Fusbahn and D. Dawirs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nube, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Lío in golden yellow and black colour — European Union trade mark No 17 225 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2021 in Case R 1220/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, the decision of the Cancellation Division of 28 April 2020 (Invalidity No. 000025781 C);

— reject the application for a declaration of invalidity and keep the contested trademark registration No. 17 225 939 registered;

— decide that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the EUIPO and Nube, SL.

Plea in law
Action brought on 9 August 2021 — British Airways v Commission

(Case T-480/21)

(2021/C 391/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Airways plc (Harmondsworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Lyle-Smythe and R. O’Donoghue, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Commission to pay forthwith the Default Interest Amount, corresponding to default interest on the amount of EUR 104 040 000 at the ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 % for the period from 14 February 2011 to 8 February 2016 (less the amount already paid by way of ‘guaranteed return’) or, alternatively, at such rate as the Court sees fit.

— order the Commission to pay compound interest (or, alternatively, default interest) on the Default Interest Amount (or such other amount as the Court orders the Commission to pay in accordance with subparagraph above) at the rate of the ECB refinancing rate plus 3,5 %, or such other rate as the Court sees fit.

— annul the decision of the Commission refusing to pay the abovementioned sums in its letters dated 30 April and 2 July 2021, and to declare it as void and of no effect ex tunc.

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that British Airways is entitled to recover the Default Interest Amount by an action under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, since the Commission was obliged to pay that amount in order to comply with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-48/11.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that British Airways is entitled, in the alternative, to recover the Default Interest Amount by an action for non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 266, Article 268 and Article 340 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that British Airways is in any event entitled to payment of the compound interest pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 or, alternatively, the second paragraph thereof, Article 268 and Article 340 TFEU, on the sum that should have been paid to it on 8 February 2016.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s refusal to pay the Default Interest Amount and compound interest, recorded in its letters of 30 April 2021 (1) and 2 July 2021 (2), is based on an infringement of the Treaties (i.e. Article 266 TFEU) and/or the general principle of EU law, that EU institutions must give restitution following a judgment annulling a measure. The applicant thus alleges that the decision shall be annulled pursuant to Article 263 TFEU.

(1) Letter from the Commission of 30 April 2021 addressed to the applicant

(2) Letter from the Commission of 2 July 2021 addressed to the applicant, Ref. ARES(2021)4317994
—

annul the Commission’s decision of 2 June 2021 refusing to grant the applicant’s requested access to Commission documents through the issuing of copies of all Commission communications (a) with the company BioNTech SE, (b) with the Federal Chancellery, Germany, regarding the company BioNTech SE and its products, (c) with the German Federal Minister for Health regarding the purchasing of vaccines to combat the coronavirus pandemic, from 1 April 2020 and in particular as regards the quantity of vaccines offered by BioNTech and their delivery times, in so far as it does not grant the applicant access or grants him access only in part;
Action brought on 21 August 2021 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-516/21)

(2021/C 412/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, for the reasons set out below, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/988 of 16 June 2021 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (1) (ad hoc Decision No 66), notified under document C(2021) 4118;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (2) (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, (3) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 and of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures providing for a retention period.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 (recital 5) and of Article 53(4) of Regulation (EU) No 639/2014, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/1383, and infringement of the principles of reasonableness, non-discrimination and proportionality with regard to the processing of late notifications to the computerised database in relation to measures not providing for a retention period.

3. Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 (4) (Article 7) with regard to the period for notifying the computerised database.

(1) OJ 2021 L 218, p. 9.

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1383 of 28 May 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 as regards the eligibility conditions in relation to the identification and registration requirements for animals for coupled support under Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2015 L 214, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 639/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and amending Annex X to that Regulation (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 August 2021 — Pierre Lannier v EUIPO — Pierre Lang Trading (PL)

(Case T-530/21)

(2021/C 422/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Lannier (Ernolsheim-lès-Saverne, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pierre Lang Trading GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PL — Application for registration No 16 176 992

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2021 in Case R 1915/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal brought against the opposition decision to be inadmissible because the statement of grounds was not submitted within the time limit;

— annul the contested decision is so far as it states that the mark applied for is similar to the earlier mark;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the company Pierre Lang GmbH to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 22(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, and of Article 67 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-549/21)

(2021/C 422/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 485

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1547/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the Court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

— In the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the international registration No 1 151 485 ROCHEM (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2021 — Harbaoui v EUIPO — Google (GC GOOGLE CAR)

(Case T-568/21)

(2021/C 431/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Zoubier Harbaoui (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Ciullo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark GC GOOGLE CAR — Application for registration No 18 007 095

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 June 2021 in Case R 902/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Google LLC to pay the costs.

Plea in law