ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 November 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Herno (HERZO)

(Case T-719/22)

(2023/C 15/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Herno SpA (Lesa, Italy)

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 word mark HERZO — Application for registration No 18 194 554

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2022 in Case R 297/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Eutelsat Madeira v Commission

(Case T-718/22)

(2023/C 24/84)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Eutelsat Madeira, Unipessoal Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Caniçal, Portugal) (represented by: R. Bordalo Junqueiro, J.P. Lampreia, R.F. Costa and P.G. Marques, advogados)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— recognise that the applicant has a legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU;

— consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU;

— annul the contested decision in accordance with Article 264 TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty, in so far as the contested decision alters the terms of an aid scheme authorised and consistently implemented for several decades.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and of equal treatment in so far as the contested decision treats equally the beneficiaries that contributed towards the attainment of the objectives of Regime III and those that did not.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment of the compatibility of Regime III of the Zona Franca de Madeira (Madeira Free Zone) with Commission Decision C(2007) 3037 final and the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2022 — Industrias Lácteas Asturianas v EUIPO — Qingdao United Dairy (NAMLAC)

(Case T-728/22)

(2023/C 24/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Industrias Lácteas Asturianas, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Riera Blanco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Qingdao United Dairy Co. Ltd (Qingdao, China)

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: Application for the EU word mark NAMLAC — Application for registration No 18 126 515

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2022 in Case R 1563/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Pumpyanskiy v Council

(Case T-734/22)

(2023/C 24/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Dmitrievich Pumpyanskiy (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name as entry No 719 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name as entry No 719 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to make a provisional payment amounting to EUR 100 000 in compensation of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, and

— order the Council to pay the costs.

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 infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the duty to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the reasons advanced by the Council.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of equal treatment.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).
Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Nutmark v Commission

(Case T-714/22)

(2023/C 24/82)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Nutmark Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vidal Matos and F. Lança Martins, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that Court should

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III, (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (JO 2022, L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the incorrect identification of the reference system, in breach of Article 4(2) TEU and Articles 107(1) and 263 TFEU.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of law due to the failure to demonstrate that Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira (Madeira Free-Trade Zone) amounts to a derogation from the reference tax system which establishes differences between economic operators that are in a comparable factual and legal situation, in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging an error of law in the assessment relating to the fulfilment of the requirements for the correct implementation of Regime III of the Zona Franca da Madeira, in that the Portuguese Republic adopted, for that purpose, criteria in accordance with Article 107(1) TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in an infringement of the principles of legal certainty and security laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 TFEU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law consisting in the infringement of the right to private property laid down in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Newco v Commission

(Case T-717/22)

(2023/C 35/90)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Newco Corporate Services, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on four pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — FOF v Commission

(Case T-688/22)

(2023/C 35/80)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: FOF — Fox Oil Fund, Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 December 2022 — Contorno Textil v EUIPO — Harmont & Blaine (GILBERT TECKEL)

(Case T-773/22)

(2023/C 45/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Contorno Textil, SL (Almedinilla, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca and C. Sotomayor Garcia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harmont & Blaine SpA (Caivano, Italy)

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 GILBERT TECKEL — Application for registration No 18 148 635

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2022 in Case R 372/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision by stating that application for registration no18 148 635 must be granted for all goods in class 25 due to the lack of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks under comparison, after giving due consideration to the differences between the signs; order EUIPO to pay the costs; or, in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 December 2022 — Hoffmann v EUIPO — Moldex/Metric (Holex)

(Case T-767/22)

(2023/C 35/100)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hoffmann GmbH Qualitätswerkzeuge (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moldex/Metric AG & Co. KG (Walddorfhäslach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark ‘Holex’ — Application No 18 222 083

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2022 in Case R 1248/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as EU trade mark application No 18 222 083 was refused in respect of the goods ‘respiratory masks, except for artificial respiration’ in Class 9 and ‘Dispensers for ear protection devices; Hearing protection means; Hearing protection means, in particular protective earplugs, protective ear flanges, protective earmuffs (ear protection devices in the form of headphones)’;

— reject the opposition in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — AEM v Commission

(Case T-301/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Existing aid or new aid - Article 87(3)(c) EC)

2009/C 180/70

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: AEM SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina, C. Croff, A. Santa Maria and G. Pizzonia, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Intervener in support of the applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Caia, V. Salvadori, N. Pisani and F. Capelli, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders AEM SpA to pay its costs and those of the Commission;

3. Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — ESN v Commission

(Case T-332/03) (1)

(Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) - Rejection of a tender - Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency - Compliance with the award criteria set out in the tendering specifications)

(2008/C 107/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Service Network (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Steichen and P.-E Partsch, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission's call for tenders ENTR/02/55 — CORDIS Lot 1 for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders European Service Network (ESN) to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/38

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2009 — CD-Contact Data v Commission

(Case T-18/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Limitation of parallel exports - Proof of the existence of an agreement to limit parallel trade - Fines - Differential treatment - Attenuating circumstances)

2009/C 141/76

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CD-Contact Data GmbH (Burglengenfeld, Germany) (represented by: J. de Pree and R. Wesseling, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, X. Lewis and O. Beynet, Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) (OJ 2003 L 255, p. 33).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on CD-Contact Data GmbH at EUR 500 000;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/20

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — SIC v Commission

(Case T-442/03) (1)

(State aid - Measures taken by the Portuguese Republic for the public service broadcaster RTP in order to finance its public service remit - Decision declaring that certain measures do not constitute State aid and that the others are compatible with the common market - Classification as State aid - Compatibility with the common market - Obligation to undertake a diligent and impartial investigation)

(2008/C 197/33)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by C. Botelho Moniz, E. Maia Cadete and M. Rosado da Fonseca, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, subsequently by M. Niejahr, J. Buendía Sierra and G. Braga da Cruz, and latterly by B. Martenczuk and G. Braga da Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/406/EC of 15 October 2003 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP (OJ 2005 L 142, p. 1) inasmuch as that decision declares that certain of those measures do not constitute State aid and that the others are compatible with the common market.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2005/406/EC of 15 October 2003 on ad hoc measures implemented by Portugal for RTP;

2. Annuls Article 2 of Decision 2005/406 in so far as it found that the exemption from registration charges does not constitute State aid;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay four fifths of the costs of SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA;

5. Orders SIC to bear one fifth of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/12

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission

(Case T-308/04) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Career evaluation report - 2001/2002 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 8/21)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Francesco Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period and payment of compensation for the non-material suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10 2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/43

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2008 — Trubowest Handel GmbH and Makarov v Council and Commission

(Case T-429/04) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Anti-dumping duties - Anti-dumping Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 - Lawyers' fees incurred in domestic proceedings - Inadmissibility - Material and non-material damage - Causal link)

(2008/C 209/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trubowest Handel GmbH (Cologne, Germany) and Viktor Makarov, (Cologne), (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by N. Khan and T. Scharf, Agents)

Re:

Application for compensation under Article 288 EC, in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic, repealing Regulation (EEC) No 1189/93 and terminating the proceeding in respect of such imports originating in the Republic of Croatia (OJ 1997 L 322, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Trubowest Handel GmbH and Victor Makarov to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the Council and the Commission.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Giannini v Commission

(Case T-100/04) (1)

(Public service - General competition - Non-inclusion in the reserve list - Irregularities in the conduct of the tests liable to distort the result - Equal treatment - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 107/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Massimo Giannini (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially, L. Lozano Palacios and M. Velardo, acting as Agents, and subsequently, G. Berscheid, acting as Agent, and M. Genton, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the fields of economics and statistics (OJ 2001 C 240 A, p. 12) not to include his name on the competition reserve list, and an application for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the Commission to pay its own costs and three quarters of the costs of the applicant;

3. orders the applicant to pay one quarter of its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.