ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 of 5 March 2018 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 48) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/326 of 5 March 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 5), in so far as they relate to the applicant;
Case T-238/18: Action brought on 12 April 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

Action brought on 12 April 2018 — Netflix International and Netflix v Commission

(Case T-238/18)

Parties

Applicants: Netflix International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Netflix, Inc. (Los Gatos, California, United States) (represented by: E. Batchelor, Solicitor, N. Niejahr, B. Hoorelbeke and A. Patsa, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 8 November 2017 on State aid SA.48950 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the aid scheme for the digitisation of cinematographic heritage works notified by France;

— annul the Commission Decision of 20 November 2017 on State aid SA.48907 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the automatic aid scheme for audiovisual work (fiction and creative documentaries) notified by France;

— annul the Commission Decision of 20 November 2017 on State aid SA.48699 (2017/N) on the prolongation of the automatic aid scheme for the production and preparation of cinematographic work notified by France; and

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and Netflix's costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.

The applicants submit that the Commission violated Article 108(3) TFEU by not opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU when examining the State aid schemes notified by France which are the subject of the contested decisions. The Commission was required to open the formal investigation procedure for each of the three State aid schemes on account of the serious difficulties it encountered in assessing each of them for compatibility with the internal market. By failing to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission infringed the procedural rights of the applicants under Article 108(2) TFEU.

The applicants submit that the existence of serious difficulties is supported by:

— the circumstances and the length of the preliminary examination procedures that led to the adoption of the contested decisions; and
Case T-320/18: Action brought on 22 May 2018 — WD v EFSA

Action brought on 22 May 2018 — WD v EFSA

(Case T-320/18)

Parties

Applicant: WD (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently,

— annul the decision of 14 July 2017, taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, according to which the applicant was not among the staff members promoted during the 2017 reclassification round;

— annul the decision of the AACC of 9 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 October 2017 directed against the decision of 14 July 2017;

— annul the decision of 9 August 2017 (and notified on 10 August 2017), taken by the Executive Director of EFSA in his capacity as AACC, not to renew the applicant’s employment contract;

— annul the decision of the AACC of 12 March 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 November 2017 directed against that decision of 9 August 2017;

— award damages for the harm suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law as regards the decision not to renew her contract.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the decision of 8 December 2012 concerning employment contract management adopted by EFSA.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and in particular the right to be heard.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the Work instruction relating to the contract of employment renewal process adopted by EFSA.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and misuse of power.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the Work instructions and the duty of care.

The applicant relies on a single plea in law as regards the decision not to promote her, alleging infringement of the decision of 22 April 2008 concerning the career of temporary staff and assignment to a post carrying a higher grade than that at which they were engaged, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.
Case T-326/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — Herrero Torres v EUIPO — DZ Licores (CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES)

(Case T-326/18)

Parties

Applicant: José-Ramón Herrero Torres (Castellón de la Plana, Spain) (represented by: J.V. Gil Martí, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DZ Licores, SLU. (Cartagena, Spain)

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 CARAJILLO LICOR 43 CUARENTA Y TRES — Application for registration No 14 444 855

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 in Case R 2104/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision on the ground that it is unlawful and order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Case T-325/18: Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)

Action brought on 28 May 2018 — VI.TO. v EUIPO — Bottega (Shape of a pink bottle)

(Case T-325/18)

Parties

Applicant: Vinicola Tombacco (VI.TO.) Srl (Trebaseleghe, Italy) (represented by: L. Giove, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sandro Bottega (Colle Umberto, Italy)

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 three-dimensional mark (Shape of a pink bottle) – European Union trade mark No 12 309 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 in Case R 1037/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Incorrect assessment of the ground for refusal laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt are inapplicable, insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-359/18: Action brought on 11 June 2018 — Unifarco v EUIPO — GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche (TRICOPID)

Action brought on 11 June 2018 — Unifarco v EUIPO — GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche (TRICOPID)

(Case T-359/18)

Parties

Applicant: Unifarco SpA (Santa Giustina, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GD Tecnologie Interdisciplinari Farmaceutiche Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘TRICOPID’ – Application for registration No 14 287 056

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2018 in Case R 2150/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the present proceedings as well as of those of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and misapplication of Article 47(2)(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-258/18: Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Brunke v Commission

Action brought on 23 April 2018 — Brunke v Commission

(Case T-258/18)

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Brunke (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Schniebel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— establish the discriminatory effect of Directive 2005/36/EC as regards the possibilities of practising as a doctor without a specialist medical qualification;

— in the alternative, oblige the defendant, by a decision in favour of the applicant, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the General Court, to allow him, within a reasonable period, to be admitted to the specialist medical profession as a specialist doctor for natural therapy in recognition of his many years of medical experience in private practice in that area and his parallel occupational training;

— in the alternative, declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under the FEU Treaty by not adopting a decision on the basis of the applicant’s complaints of 6 June 2017 and of 27 December 2017.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council ( 1 ) prevents him from pursuing a medical profession in Europe, since, for the applicant, the absence of an exemption for non-specialist doctors has the result that the applicant is de facto prohibited from carrying on his profession. In that regard, the applicant alleges that the Commission has failed to examine the existence of that discrimination.

( 1 ) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).
Case T-412/18: Action brought on 2 July 2018 — mobile.de v EUIPO — Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (mobile.ro)

Action brought on 2 July 2018 — mobile.de v EUIPO — Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (mobile.ro)

(Case T-412/18)

Parties

Applicant: mobile.de GmbH (Dreilinden, Germany) (represented by: T. Lührig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Droujestvo S Ogranichena Otgovornost ‘Rezon’ (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark mobile.ro — EU trade mark No 8 838 542

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2018 in Case R 111/2015-1

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 18(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 64(2) and (3), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 19(2) and Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625, in conjunction with Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(a)(ii), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Case T-337/18: Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

Action brought on 1st of June 2018 — Laboratoire Pareva v Commission

(Case T-337/18)

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Pareva (Saint Martin de Crau, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 ( 1 ) of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 under Regulation 528/2012 ( 2 ) (the ‘Contested Decision’); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant submits that the Contested Decision was adopted by the defendant in violation of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘'TFEU’'), the EU secondary legislation and the principles of EU law. Therefore, the applicant seeks annulment of the Contested Decision on the following three grounds:

1. First plea in law, alleging substantive procedural errors: — the defendant has failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the Contested Decision. The defendant has infringed substantive procedural rules of Article 6(7)(a) and Article 6(7)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 1062/2014 ( 3 ) which, if they had been respected, could have led to a different outcome.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment: — The defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment by taking into account irrelevant factors in its assessment of PHMB and by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific and relevant to the applicant's PHMB.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of fundamental principles of EU law and of the rights of defence: — The defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was given a full, proper and effective opportunity to submit comments during the procedure.

( 1 ) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/619 of 20 April 2018 not approving PHMB (1415; 4.7) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 1, 5 and 6 (OJ 2018, L 102, p. 21)

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012, L 167, p. 1)

( 3 ) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1062/2014 of 4 August 2014 on the work programme for the systematic examination of all existing active substances contained in biocidal products referred to in Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014, L 294, p. 1)
Action brought on 5 July 2018 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB

(Case T-414/18)

(2018/C 301/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 12 April 2018 on the calculation of the 2018 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2018/03), including the Annex thereto, in any event in so far as the contested decision, including the Annex thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant; and

— order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to incomplete notification of the contested decision.

2. Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to a failure to state sufficient reasons in the contested decision.

3. Infringement of essential procedural requirements due to the absence of a hearing and the failure to observe the right to a fair hearing.

4. Unlawfulness of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 (1) as a basis for the contested decision. In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that Articles 4 to 7 and 9 of, as well as Annex I to, Delegated Regulation 2015/63 — provisions which form the basis for the contested decision — establish an opaque system for the setting of contributions, which is contrary to Articles 16, 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and pursuant to which compliance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter and observance of the principles of proportionality and legal certainty are not ensured.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
Case T-322/18: Action brought on 23 May 2018 — García Ruiz v Parliament

Action brought on 23 May 2018 — García Ruiz v Parliament

(Case T-322/18)

Parties

Applicant: Faustino-Francisco García Ruiz (Alcorcón, Spain) (represented by: C. Manzano Ledesma, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Find that the decision of the Committee on Petitions is contested by way of this action and, after declaring the action admissible, find that there has been an infringement of rights, thus guaranteeing the interests of the applicant before this Court.

— Make an order as to costs, if appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

This action is brought pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 232 TEC and the third paragraph of Article 265 TFEU on the ground that the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament did not address to the applicant any act other than a recommendation or an opinion, thus failing to protect the applicant’s right, in breach of the Treaty.

The decisions adopted by the Administración Pública de la Comunidad de Madrid (public authorities of the Community of Madrid) and the courts cause the applicant damage as regards his rights and financial interests, on account of a breach of the right to receive an additional allowance of public pension granted by the Comunidad de Madrid.

The administrative decision of the Comunidad de Madrid and the judgments delivered by the courts cause unequal treatment and discrimination as regards the benefits received as between pensioners who have taken voluntary retirement and pensioners who have reached compulsory retirement age.

The European Union has competence in pension matters and it is therefore for the General Court to safeguard the applicant’s right once the public authorities and the national courts have rejected the right conferred by settled case-law of the courts of the European Union and by the equal pay directives, in the absence of an objective difference in fact and in law as regards the receipt of benefits by the two categories of pensioners mentioned above.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)

(Case T-458/18)

(2018/C 319/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and P. Gentili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘real nature’ — Application for registration No 16 660 425

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2650/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 July 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)

(Case T-444/18)

(2018/C 311/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Peek & Cloppenburg — EU trade mark No 270 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2018 in Case R 522/2006-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(2) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Paragraph 15(3) of the German Law on trade marks;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of foresight on the part of EUIPO. In that regard, the applicant claims that: — first, the situation that EUIPO has created as a result of the actions complained of infringes Article 148 of the founding regulation of EUIPO and Article 2 of the Founding Regulation of the CdT, in that it could lead to the absence of a valid arrangement as of 1 January 2019; — secondly, Article 2 of the founding regulation of the CdT lists the different types of clients of the CdT and Article 2(1) expressly names seven agencies, bodies and offices, including EUIPO, for which the CdT is to provide the translation services necessary for their operation. In addition, Article 2(3) states that institutions and bodies which have their own translation service may, on a voluntary basis, make use of the CdT’s services; — thirdly, it follows from a combined reading of Articles 2(1) and 2(3) of the founding regulation of the CdT that the agencies listed in Article 2(1) are not entitled to decide, on a voluntary basis, whether or not to make use of the CdT’s services, and consequently may decide to terminate an arrangement concluded with the CdT only where another such arrangement is subsequently to enter into force.