ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 2 August 2018 — WV v EEAS

(Case T-471/18)

(2018/C 364/19)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: WV (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 27 November 2017, reference ‘eeas.ba.hr.3(2017)6459331’, delivered by [confidential] (1) imposing on the applicant a salary deduction in the amount of 72 calendar days;

— annul, in so far as necessary, the explicit rejection decision of 2 May 2018 (‘eeas.ba.hr.3/ED/ld(2018)2309062’) following the applicant’s complaint of 3 January 2018;

— decide that the sums that must be reimbursed to the applicant following that annulment are to be increased by default interest calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum or a different rate to be set by the Court, calculated on the day on which actual recovery takes place and according to the dates of the various deductions made;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs, in accordance with Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 1e(2), 12, 12a, 21, 25, 26, 55 and 60 of the Staff Regulations, of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration and infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1). She also invokes infringement of, inter alia, Articles 41, 47 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, of the European Convention on Human Rights and of the right to a fair hearing, infringement of Article 296 TFEU and abuse of rights and abuse of process, as well as a flagrant breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of equality of arms. Lastly, the applicant claims infringement of the principle which requires the authorities to hand down decisions only on the basis of legally permissible grounds, by which is meant grounds which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment, fact or law, as well as infringement of the principles of proportionality, audi alteram partem and legal certainty, in addition to infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(1) Confidential data omitted.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2018 — BGC Partners v EUIPO — Bankgirocentralen BGC (BGCPRO)

(Case T-523/18)

(2018/C 392/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BGC Partners LP (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: P. Walsh, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bankgirocentralen BGC AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

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 BGCPRO — Application for registration No 9 573 965

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 2544/2014-5.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as the Board of Appeal determined that the Application should be rejected for specific services in class 36;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

— alter the contested decision with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred in the Board of Appeal and the opposition proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal incorrectly found that evidence of use was sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of the mark;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular breach of Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU, Article 3 of Decision 2015/443 and Articles 6, 7, 8, 15, 27, 31, 41, 42, 47, 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This plea is divided into three parts: — first part, alleging infringement of the rights to freedom, privacy, protection of personal data and the right freely to exercise a profession; — second part, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration, transparency, access to documents and an effective remedy and infringement of the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence; — third part, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2018 — Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO — Dalian Wanda Group Co. (WANDA FILMS)

(Case T-533/18)

(2018/C 399/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) ans Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Wanda Films, SL

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WANDA FILMS — Application for registration No 13 912 829

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2018 in Case R 401/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the present application, the arguments and documents (including the ones presented with this application and the ones presented by the applicant during the opposition and appeal proceedings);

— override the contested decision;

— issue a decision that admits the registration of the trade mark defended by the applicant with the present application.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment of the Bioaccumulative (‘B’) properties of D4, D5 and D6, and in its assessment of the Toxic (‘T’) properties of D5 and D6 and exceeded its competence as well as breached Article 59 of Regulation 1907/2006: — by relying on the MSC and RAC opinions without making its own assessment of the information at hand and thereby importing the vitiating errors in those opinions; — by concluding that D4, D5 and D6 meet the vPvB criteria in Annex XIII although persistence (P) and bioaccumulation (B) were not established for the same compartment; — by not taking into consideration the specific nature of D4, D5 and D6 (their ‘hybrid’ nature) when applying the criteria laid down in Annex XIII for bioaccumulation; — by reaching conclusions on the bioaccumulation (B/vB) of D4 and D5 which the evidence relied upon is not capable of sustaining; — by failing to assess the new evidence on bioaccumulation (B/vB) for D4 and D5 available to it after the MSC and RAC opinions; — by failing to take into account all relevant information in concluding on the bioaccumulation (vB) of D6; — by failing to consider the information on the toxicity of D5 itself and instead identifying D5 as PBT based on the presence of D4 as an impurity, and by identifying D5 as PBT without the specific limits on the content of D4 agreed upon by the MSC; — by failing to consider the information on the toxicity of D6 itself and instead identifying D6 as PBT based on the presence of D4 as an impurity, and by identifying D6 as PBT without the specific limits on the content of D4 agreed upon by the MSC.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (2) through the application of financial corrections on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and an incorrect interpretation of the law. — The Republic of Poland emphasises that the amounts excluded from European Union financing by virtue of the contested decision were spent in accordance with the provisions of EU legislation laying down the rules for implementing specific support for the tobacco sector, namely Regulation No 73/2009, (3) Regulation No 1120/2009 (4) and Regulation No 1122/2009. (5) The way in which that support was implemented by the Polish authorities was also in accordance with national legislation and the Programme communicated to the Commission of activities carried out in Poland in the context of the specific support provided for in Article 68 of Regulation No 73/2009. — With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at producer level, the Republic of Poland states that there was no obligation, either under EU law or under national law, for producers to deliver all the tobacco produced to the initial processors. The Polish system of on-the-spot checks fully enabled the effective verification of whether all the eligibility conditions for support had been satisfied. — With regard to the part of the plea which concerns on-the-spot checks at the point of delivery, the Republic of Poland states that those checks fully ensured the verification of all the quality requirements to be met by the raw tobacco qualifying for support, including, in particular, the requirements concerning humidity and sand and dirt content. — With regard to the Commission’s complaint concerning the lack of a specific system of reductions and exclusions, the Republic of Poland states that the Polish system of penalties in the field of specific support for the tobacco sector was entirely in line with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 73/2009. In particular, that system was very restrictive and prevented any risk of loss to the Fund.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2018 — ND (*1) and OE (*1) v Commission

(Case T-581/18)

(2018/C 408/81)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: ND (*1), OE (*1) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Admit the present application for annulment;

— On the substance, declare the action well-founded in its pleas, in consequence annul the decision of the European Commission served on 30 July 2018, on the basis of Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968, and/or of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, by way of the action provided for in Article 263 TFEU, and refer the file back to the competent authority;

— Order all acts required by the law in the matter;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the instance;

— Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

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 Regulation No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, instituting equality between all EU citizens, which was not complied with in the present case.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
—

According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to comply with the terms of the contracts by making an incorrect classification and quantification of the costs charged and continues to fail to comply, in spite of the arguments and evidence presented in the adversarial procedure, thereby demonstrating bad faith.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 20(11) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1). That plea is divided into three parts. — First part, based on the argument that the contested decision determines the possibility to write back creditors’ claims or increase the value of the consideration paid without carrying out an ex-post definitive valuation. — Second part, based on the argument that the SRB did not verify that the information on which the valuation is based are as recent and complete as possible and, accordingly, any losses incurred on the assets of an entity may be fully taken into account. — Third part, based on infringement of the Meroni case-law in that the Commission should have given its consent to the SRB’s decision not to ensure that an ex-post definitive valuation is carried out.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of information collected by a method which infringes the right to good administration enshrined in Art 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
2.

Under a second plea in law, the legality of the challenged decision is also contested given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Hexal’s generic market authorisation application, which was not the case. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFUE, which in turn renders the contested decision illegal.
1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 3 of Annex III thereto and, second, infringement of the rules governing the organisation of the competition’s tests. In that regard, the applicant claims in particular that only two members of the selection board were present at her interviews, and not the selection board composed of the president and six members. Furthermore, she points out that the president took part in the proceedings of the selection board only as a mere observer, which also infringes the provisions of the Staff Regulations.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 October 2018 — ZI v Commission

(Case T-618/18)

(2018/C 455/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZI (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s husband affiliation to the JSIS;

— 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, alleging the unlawfulness of Article 13 of the Joint Rules on Sickness Insurance for officials of the European Union, in so far as that article breaches Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, since it restricts the scope thereof.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 October 2018 — ruwido austria v EUIPO (transparent pairing)

(Case T-649/18)

(2019/C 4/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ruwido austria GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for EU word mark transparent pairing — Application for registration No 16 581 118

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 2487/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Failure to state reasons in the contested decision;
Action brought on 31 October 2018 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a pattern of squares)

(Case T-658/18)

(2019/C 25/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson and R. Wessman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark in colours blue and white (Representation of a pattern of squares) — Application for registration No 1 340 047

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 in Case R 442/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the Board of Appeal has not made a proper examination, and/or has failed to state the reasons for its decision in relation to the different goods and services applied for;

— Infringement of Article 94, Article 95 and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the grounds that the subject trade mark is not a repeated pattern or a three-dimensional mark;

— Erroneous assessment of the relevant underlying public interest constituting infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2018 — Società agricola Giusti Dal Col v EUIPO — DMC (GIUSTI WINE)

(Case T-678/18)

(2019/C 25/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società agricola Giusti Dal Col Srl (Nervesa della Battaglia, Italy) (represented by: M. Pizzigati and A. Mayr, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, 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 word mark GIUSTI WINE

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2018 in Case R 1154/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT)

(Case T-685/18)

(2019/C 25/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication SCRL (La Hulpe, Belgium)

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 SWIFT — Application for registration No 13 370 861

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2018 in Case R 476/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the applicant’s appeal against the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Dalasa v EUIPO — Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin (charantea)

(Case T-733/18)

(2019/C 54/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dalasa Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Gliedkörperschaft Öffentlichen Rechts (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the mark at issue: Applicant

Mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark charantea — Application for registration No 15 785 801

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2018 in Case R 540/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action, alter the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 15 October 2018, R 540/2018-4 concerning opposition proceedings B 2 815 978 (EU trade mark application No 15 785 801), reject the opposition, and allow the EU trade mark application to proceed to registration; in the alternative,

— annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 15 October 2018, R 540/2018-4 concerning opposition proceedings B 2 815 978 (EU trade mark application No 15 785 801) and refer the case back to EUIPO;

— in any event, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings; and

— order the opposing party to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2018 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Lloyd Shoes (LLOYD)

(Case T-729/18)

(2019/C 44/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lloyd Shoes GmbH (Sulingen, Germany)

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 EU figurative mark LLOYD — Application for registration No 10 367 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Joined Cases R 2385/2017-1 and R 2431/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing in part the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds in part the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 1 959 470, granting EU trade mark No 10 367 721 LLOYD (figurative) for ‘wholesaling and retailing, including via the internet and through teleshopping, in the fields of clothing, footwear, headgear’;

— order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

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