ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 2 March 2019 — Solar Ileias Bompaina v Commission

(Case T-143/19)

(2019/C 148/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Solar Ileias Bompaina AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Metaxas and A. Bartosch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested acts of the Commission, i.e., Decision C(2018) 6777 final of 10 October 2018 to the extent that it rejects the complaints brought before the Commission in Case SA.41794 and specifically only the paragraphs 111-121 of that Decision as well as the Letter dated 8.2.2019 (B.2 VI/MJ/mkl D*2019/019026);

— order the Commission to bear the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural rights of the applicant, because of the omission to define the relevant reference system as the prerogative for assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the incorrect assessment of facts presented to the Commission during the administrative procedure as to the compatibility of RES producers and energy suppliers, the wrongful legal analysis of the criterion of comparability to be carried out when assessing the material selectivity of the contested measure, the insufficient reasoning underpinning the apparent lack of carrying out a diligent assessment, as well as the erroneous assessment of the subject due to incorrect application of the invoked jurisprudence.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 April 2019 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-262/19)

(2019/C 206/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a cup) — Application for registration No 15 963 994

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1153/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision to the effect that the appeal is well founded and EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 may consequently be entered in the Register of the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)

(Case T-255/19)

(2019/C 187/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Aichstetten, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark BIOTON — Application for registration No 17 746 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1887/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark application BIOTON to proceed to registration in respect of all the goods applied for;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO with the direction to alter the contested decision and register EU trade mark No 17 746 009 BIOTON;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— 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 6 May 2019 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Heretat Mont-Rubi (SUM011)

(Case T-296/19)

(2019/C 213/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and A. Sebastião, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heretat Mont-Rubi, SA (Font-Rubi, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SUM011 — Application for registration No 13 761 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 1662/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision and order the refusal of EUTM Application No. 13 761 168 SUM011 for the remaining services in classes 35 and 39;

— order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the opposition and appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), of Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) and of the Communications to Members Nos 11/2003 and 22/2016.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Divaro v EUIPO — Grendene (IPANEMA)

(Case T-288/19)

(2019/C 213/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Divaro, SA (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: M. Santos Quintana and M. A. Fernández Munárriz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grendene, SA (Sobral, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark IPANEMA — Application for registration No 14 180 038

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 February 2019 in Case R 1785/2018-2;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 July 2018 (opposition B 2 598 285;

— order that the opposing mark EUTM No 14 180 038 is to be registered for all the goods referred to in the application;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2019 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend)

(Case T-307/19)

(2019/C 230/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SQlab GmbH (Taufkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Koelle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Innerbarend — Application for registration No 15 442 635

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 in Case R 2180/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision to the effect that the action is well founded and the EU trade mark ‘Innerbarend’ is to be registered in Class 12;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Pech v Council

(Case T-252/19)

(2019/C 213/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laurent Pech (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and T. McGrath, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council decision contained in a letter to the applicant of 12 February 2019 refusing full access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT (legal opinion of Council legal service of 25 October 2018), pursuant to Articles 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, (1);

— in subsidiary order, order the Council to grant wider partial access to document ST 13593 2018 INIT, pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001; and

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 an error in law and misapplication of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation 1049/2001. — It is argued that the Council failed to demonstrate that the requested document contained legal advice. — The applicant further argues that the Council misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4(2), second indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, by not taking into account the provisions of EU primary law summarised in the application as well as the principle that EU legislative documents are subject to the widest possible access, while also relying on vague and subjective notions not provided for in EU law to justify non-disclosure. — The Council committed an error in law and misapplied the overriding public interest test.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an error in law and misapplication of Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001. — The applicant argues that the Council failed to show that full disclosure would specifically and effectively undermine the decision-making process in question. — The Council misinterpreted and misapplied Article 4(3), first paragraph, of Regulation 1049/2001 and the case-law of the EU Courts, by ignoring the provisions of EU primary law summarised in the application and the principle that EU legislative documents are subject to the widest possible access. — The Council failed to properly assess the public interest in disclosure.

3. Third plea in law, a subsidiary plea, alleging that, should the exceptions relied upon be applicable to the requested document, the Council breached Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, in that it evidently failed to fulfil its obligation to grant the (proper and required) partial access it should have granted to the requested document under the said Article 4(6), by withholding access to the entire section on the legal analysis.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 May 2019 — Ntolas v EUIPO — General Nutrition Investment (GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES)

(Case T-333/19)

(2019/C 246/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Christos Ntolas (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: C. Renger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Nutrition Investment Co. (Wilmington, Delaware, 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 GN GENETIC NUTRITION LABORATORIES — Application for registration No 13 116 678

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 March 2019 in Case R 1343/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 May 2019 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-302/19)

(2019/C 238/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Yanukovych (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354, (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

— annul the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352, (2) insofar as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-301/18, Yanukovych v Council. (3)

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 7).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 64, 5.3.2019, p. 1).

(3) OJ C 231, 2.7.2018, p. 48.
—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant the following separate sums by way of damages: — EUR 5 000 in respect of non-material harm caused by the dismissal decision; — EUR 5 000 in respect of damage to reputation caused by the dismissal decision; — EUR 10 000 in respect of material harm caused by the adverse effects on the applicant’s state of health following her dismissal; — EUR 58 900 in respect of material harm linked to the loss of income as a result of her unlawful dismissal;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 June 2019 — Pierre Balmain v EUIPO (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain)

(Case T-332/19)

(2019/C 246/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Pierre Balmain SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a lion’s head encircled by rings forming a chain) — Application for registration No 17 515 115

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 in Case R 1224/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 115 for the rejected goods in Classes 14 and 26;

— order any party who opposes this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 May 2019 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-317/19)

(2019/C 263/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019; (1)

— order the defendant to pay all 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 that the contested regulation was adopted further to a manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation results from a procedure during which the applicant’s rights of defence were not respected.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the proportionality principle.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions)

(Case T-380/19)

(2019/C 270/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions — Application No 15 244 742

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 in Case R 1427/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by Regulation (EU) 2019/592 of the acquired rights derived from European citizenship. In the first place, the applicants are of the opinion that the Parliament and the Council infringed their right to respect for private and family life in that for over fifteen years they have established their lives in another Member State of the European Union, a State with which they have a close connection: some of the applicants have spouses and children who are nationals from another Member State or they own property in another Member State. In the second place, the applicants take the view that the contested regulation infringes the principle of equality since it recognises that the rights they derive from their European citizenship will cease without making any distinction between citizens subject to the rule depriving them of their right to vote after residing for fifteen years outside the United Kingdom and other citizens.
—

annul, first, the jury’s decision in Open Competition EPSO/AD/363/18 (AD7) — 2 (Administrators in field of taxation) to exclude the applicant from the next phase of the competition (Assessment Centre) following her request for review and, second, all the results of the phase Talent Screener;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted a decision which constituted an abuse of power, inasmuch as: (i) the Commission adopted a decision de facto finding that Article 102 TFEU does not apply to the anti-competitive practices of PJSC Gazprom and Gazprom Export LLC due to the existence of state coercion stemming from domestic law of the Russian Federation, and did so on an incorrect legal basis, that is to say on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU instead of on the basis of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81[EC] and 82 [EC] (2) read in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU, that is to say, in particular, in omitting to take into account the observations of the Member States of the European Union, (ii) the Commission initiated proceedings AT.40497 and conducted those proceedings with the aim of restricting the applicant’s right to be heard in the context of the proceedings conducted under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area in Case AT.39816 — Upstream gas supplies in Central and Eastern Europe.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB

(Case T-488/19)

(2019/C 295/108)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Babcock International Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-485/19)

(2019/C 312/24)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Babcock International Group plc (London, United Kingdom), Babcock Aviation Services (Holdings) Ltd (London) and Babcock Mission Critical Services Leasing Ltd (London) (represented by: J. Lesar, Solicitor, and K. Beal, QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly applied Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in its selection of the reference framework for the analysis of the tax regime. The Commission should have treated the reference framework as the UK’s corporation tax regime, not simply the controlled foreign companies (CFC) regime itself.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU and/or made a manifest error of appraisal or assessment by adopting a flawed approach to the analysis of the CFC regime. The Commission at recitals (124) to (126) of the contested decision wrongly treated the provisions of Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a form of derogation from a general charge to tax found in Chapter 5 thereof.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in its application of Article 107(1) TFEU when finding at recitals (127) to (151) of the contested decision that the selectivity criterion was fulfilled in that undertakings in factually and legally comparable positions were treated differently.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the 75 % exemption under section 371ID of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified by the nature and overall structure of the tax system.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the imposition of a tax burden on CFCs meeting the exemptions contained in Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the UK’s Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 as a class would breach the applicants’ freedom of establishment contrary to Article 49 TFEU.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that there was a manifest error of appraisal or assessment in relation to the 75 % exemption and fixed ratio issue.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision fails to comply with the general EU law principle of non-discrimination or equality.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in applying by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164, (1) which was not applicable ratione temporis.

(1) Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market (OJ 2016 L 193, p. 1).