ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/68

Action brought on 27 November 2015 — Clover Canyon v OHIM — Kaipa Sportswear (CLOVER CANYON)

(Case T-693/15)

(2016/C 038/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Clover Canyon, Inc. (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaipa Sportswear GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘CLOVER CANYON’ — Application for registration No 1 120 485

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2015 in Case R 3018/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— impose the costs of the application on the Defendant including the costs of the appeal proceedings; or

— impose the costs of the application on the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/70

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

(Case T-657/15)

(2016/C 048/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8553 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/64

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament

(Case T-650/15)

(2016/C 048/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8551 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 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).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of State resources By their second plea in law, the applicants claim that the support for renewable energy financed by the EEG-surcharge is not received from State funds, but rather from private funds. Neither the collection nor the use of the EEG-surcharge takes place under the control of the State, as is required by the case-law. Moreover, the regime at issue is not a burden on the State treasury, since the entire amount of the EEG-surcharge is not reduced by the fact that the provision of self-sufficiency by means of existing installations is exempt from surcharges.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/69

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament

(Case T-656/15)

(2016/C 048/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8552 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/28

Action brought on 25 November 2015 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-692/15)

(2016/C 059/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 2 516 221,50 for material and non-material loss suffered due to the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons, entities and bodies in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 and in Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay interest for late payment in the amount of two percent over the rate of interest set by the European Central Bank for the principal refinancing operation from 17 October 2015 until payment in full of the above amount;

— Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, according to which it claims that the Council — which unlawfully included it in the list of persons, entities and bodies all of whose funds and economic resources were frozen — infringed provisions which protect individual interests and which do not confer discretion on it.

The applicant suffered material and non-material loss as a direct consequence of the restrictive measures that the Council unlawfully imposed on it.
Third plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

In that regard, it is claimed that the defendant established, with respect to the applicant, a legitimate expectation because it failed to examine, in the light of the law on aid, the EEG-Act — of which it was aware — for more than ten years. In addition, the defendant refrained from making recoveries of comparable aid in other Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/41

Action brought on 22 December 2015 — Facebook v OHIM — Brand IP Licensing (lovebook)

(Case T-757/15)

(2016/C 068/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Facebook, Inc. (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brand IP Licensing Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘lovebook’ — Community trade mark application No 9 926 577

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2015 in Case R 2028/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety, insofar as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division which upheld the opposition against the CTM application No 9 926 577 LOVEBOOK on the basis of likelihood of confusion, based in its conclusions that the similarities of the signs are minor in relation to their differences, that the overall impression of the signs in the perception of the relevant public is that they are not similar, and that this is so, even if the earlier trademarks enjoy enhanced distinctiveness;

— order reimbursement of its costs in this appeal before the General Court.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of EMA of 25 November 2015, communicated to the applicants the 3 December 2015, to grant a third party access to the information about a veterinary medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), in so far as the decision concerns commercially confidential information the release of which will infringe the applicants' rights and in so far as the decision is prohibited by EU law;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/22

Action brought on 14 December 2015 — ICA Laboratories e.a. v Commission

(Case T-732/15)

(2016/C 078/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa), ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City), ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Crespi, lawyers, and P. Sellar, solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels of guazatine in or on certain products (1); and

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants allege that by adopting Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 imposing a maximum residue limit of 0,05 mg/kg of the active substance guazatine in or on certain products, the Commission has committed infringements of European Union law and failed to apply general principles of European Union law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission frustrated the legitimate expectations of the South African government and of the applicants and infringed legally binding rules under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (2) by failing to take into account the available scientific and technical information.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in relying upon two opinions of the European Food Safety Authority, the contents of these opinions revealing those errors.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has infringed the applicants’ rights of defence. The Commission has relied on an alleged scientific concern on which no information is given either in the contested regulation or in the documents on which the contested regulation is based.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested regulation is disproportionate. The Commission has chosen the most onerous measure where other more proportionate measures were available to it.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels of guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (OJ 2005 L 70, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to identify a proper legal base. Article 29 TEU was not a proper legal base for the contested decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined the rule of law or human rights in Ukraine (within the meaning of Articles 21(2) and 23 TEU). As the decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on Article 215(2) TFEU to enact the contested regulation. At the time that the restrictive measures were imposed, there was no charge against the applicant in the context of judicial proceedings that his activities threatened to undermine the rule of law, or violated any human rights in Ukraine. The restrictive measures in fact endorse a violation of the rule of law by the Ukrainian authorities in their treatment of the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/33

Action brought on 28 April 2016 — KK v EASME

(Case T-376/15)

(2016/C 243/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KK (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 15 June 2015, by which EASME rejected the applicant’s proposal;

— order EASME to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the loss of opportunity, and EUR 90 800 in compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant;

— order EASME to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law in support of its claim for annulment.

1. First plea in law, alleging the technical inaccessibility of the Internet portal where the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals and related activities under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) should have been submitted.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant, contrary to what is contended by EASME, did not fraudulently sign the commitment when submitting its proposal file.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the rejection of the proposal submitted by the applicant is contrary to the competition rules.

The applicant also relies on two pleas in law in support of its claim for compensation.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the applicant suffered material damage relating to the loss of opportunity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/21

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)

(Case T-778/15)

(2016/C 090/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: It Works S.A. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KESA Holdings Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘IT it WORKS’ — Application for registration No 10 359 222

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2106/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17/06/2014 in opposition proceedings No B 001988727 with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

— refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 010359222 in respect of all the services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

— charge the OHIM with the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/57

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-698/16

( Official Journal of the European Union C 441 of 28 November 2016 )

(2017/C 006/72)

The Notice in Case T-698/16 Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB should read as follows:

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB (Case T-698/16) (2016/C 441/34) Language of the case: English Parties Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers) Defendant: European Central Bank Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul the ECB’s decision dated 11 July 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and — order the defendant to pay all costs. Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law. 1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB’s earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review. 2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate. 3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures. 4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment. 5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir. 6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. 7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/25

Action brought on 19 January 2016 — Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM (Beaker)

(Case T-16/16)

(2016/C 090/34)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mast-Jägermeister SE (Wolfenbüttel, Germany) (represented by: H. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus, and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Design at issue: Community design ‘Beaker’ — Application for registration No 2683615-0001 and 2683615-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2015 in Case R 1842/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— recognise 17 April 2015 as the day of filing for Community design No 002683615-0001 and 002683615-0002;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 45(1), Article 46(2) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002 read in conjunction with Article 36(1)(c) and Article 38(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;