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

Action brought on 27 April 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-225/21)

(2021/C 228/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F-C. Laprévote, S. Rating, V. Blanc and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 4 September 2020 on State Aid SA.58114 (2020/N) — Italy — COVID-19 aid to Alitalia (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU by prioritising the review of the aid and freezing its investigations of unlawful rescue aid granted to Alitalia in 2017 and 2019.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 41, p. 6

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 May 2021 — Établissement Amra v EUIPO — eXpresio (Shape of a rebound shoe with the word elements ‘Aerower Jumper1 M’)

(Case T-264/21)

(2021/C 263/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Établissement Amra (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: M. Gómez Calvo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: eXpresio, estudio creativo, SL (La Nucía, Spain)

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 rebound shoe with the word elements ‘Aerower Jumper1 M’) — European Union trade mark No 17 417 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 1083/2020-1

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 the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 May 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-268/21)

(2021/C 252/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 22 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59029 — – Italy — COVID-19 — Compensation scheme for airlines with an Italian operating license (1); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2) (b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 77, p. 6-7.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Daimler v EUIPO (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background II)

(Case T-278/21)

(2021/C 278/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daimler AG (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of three-pronged elements on a black background II) — Application for registration No 18 206 086

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 1896/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 May 2021 — The Topps Company v EUIPO — Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (Shape of a baby’s bottle)

(Case T-273/21)

(2021/C 278/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Topps Company, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. Wieddekind and D. Wiemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz (Gdansk, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a baby’s bottle) — European Union trade mark No 1 400 407

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2021 in Case R 1326/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Troy Chemical and Troy v Commission

(Case T-297/21)

(2021/C 289/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Troy Chemical Co. BV (Delft, Netherlands) and Troy Corp. (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Abrahams, H. Widemann and Ł. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 (1) in its entirety;

— take such other or further measure as justice may require; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that, in setting the three-year approval period for carbendazim, the defendant committed an error of law, misused its powers, breached legitimate expectations (derived from applicable guidance), breached the principle of non-discrimination and committed a manifest error of appraisal.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘ specific conditions ’ were required to ban biocidal product authorisations for use in paints and plasters to be used outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and a misuse of its powers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘ specific conditions ’ were required to ban placing on the market of specific treated articles (paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim) for use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal as well as an error of law.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that, in reaching the conclusion that ‘ specific conditions ’ were required for labelling of paints and plasters treated with/incorporating carbendazim for use outdoors to remind users of a ban on use outdoors, the defendant committed a manifest error of law and fact.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/348 of 25 February 2021 approving carbendazim as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-types 7 and 10 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 174-177).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — ALO jewelry CZ v EUIPO — Cartier International (ALOve)

(Case T-288/21)

(2021/C 278/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ALO jewelry CZ s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: K. Čermák, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cartier International AG (Steinhausen, Switzerland)

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 ALOve — Application for registration No 16 724 701

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2021 in Case R 2679/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — V. Fraas (FRAAS)

(Case T-329/21)

(2021/C 297/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts/Wüstenselbitz, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘FRAAS’ — EU trade mark No 5 769 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 in Case R 2714/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order that the contested mark also be cancelled for the following goods:

Class 18: Handbags;

Class 25: Clothing, headgear, scarves, headscarves and shawls, except goods of fur and imitation fur; gloves, caps, textile accessories for clothing and headgear (included in Class 25);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Cathay Pacific Airways v Commission

(Case T-291/21)

(2021/C 289/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay: — Financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 57 120 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (i.e. 1,0 percentage point), increased by 3,5 percentage points, for the period between 10 February 2011 and 4 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 14 211 026,51or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate; and — Compound interest on the amount of default interest for the period between 5 February 2016 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by 3,5 percentage points or, failing that, at the interest rate the Court considers appropriate;

— Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul the contested decision;

— Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the Applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action for damages, the applicant relies on a single plea in law. The applicant alleges that the European Union is liable pursuant to Articles 266, 268 and 340 TFEU to pay non-contractual damages to the applicant amounting to default interest for the reference period.

In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on four pleas in law

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision as its basis for rejecting the application as time-barred constitutes an error in law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Regulation No 2342/2002 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Court shall annul the contested decision (3) because it is insufficiently motivated.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

(3) No Ares(2021)2113498 of 25 March 2021.
—

Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the single resolution fund for 2021 (ref: SRB/ESF/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in any event in so far as that Decision, including the annexes thereto, concerns the contribution to be paid by the applicant;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 June 2021 — Polo Club Düsseldorf v EUIPO — Company Bridge and Life (POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976)

(Case T-355/21)

(2021/C 329/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club Düsseldorf GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Company Bridge and Life, SL (Elche, Spain)

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 POLO CLUB DÜSSELDORF EST. 1976 — Application for registration No 17 984 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2021 in Case R 1667/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— change the contested decision, and

— reject the opposition.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 June 2021 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE)

(Case T-370/21)

(2021/C 329/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 NUTRIFEN AGNUBALANCE — International registration designating the European Union No 1 430 349

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 in Case R 1208/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the registration of the IR 1 430 349 for all applied goods;

— order EUIPO and Alter Farmacia, S. A. to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

order the Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by Cargolux because of the Commission’s failure to pay the Default Interest Amount Payable and Compound Interest Amount Payable, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, Cargolux Airlines International SA v Commission (Case T-39/11), and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU: (a) the Default Interest Amount Payable, i.e. interest on the sum of EUR 39 900 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 15 February 2011 and 5 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 8 075 972,03 or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; and (b) the Compound Interest Amount Payable, i.e. interest on the amount of the Default Interest Amount Payable under paragraph (a) above, for the period between 5 February 2016 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in paragraph (a) above (or in the event that the Court rejects Cargolux’s request for the Compound Interest Amount Payable to run from 5 February 2016, at the very least for the period between the date of this application and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed in paragraph (a) above), at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % (or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate);
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel and Others v SRB

(Case T-384/21)

(2021/C 338/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit Mutuel (Paris, France) and 26 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/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 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 eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges.
3.

Third plea in law: the Commission infringed the rights of the defence in that (i) the case against the applicants in the Decision did not correspond in a fundamental way with the essential case advanced against the applicants in the Statement of Objections; (ii) the Commission failed to explain why it considered the contacts referenced obliquely only in Annex 1 to the Statement of Objections and Annex 1 to the Decision were unlawful and (iii) the applicants were not given the opportunity to respond to new points made in the Decision — that had not been made in the Statement of Objections — about certain communications.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the applicant’s proposal in so far as concerns Criterion 1 of the call for proposals, by stating that the applicant does not adequately describe the physical environment of the Kalamata EDIC zone of activity and that it failed to take digital transformation into consideration.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Les Éditions P. Amaury v EUIPO — Golden Balls (BALLON D’OR)

(Case T-478/21)

(2021/C 382/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éditions P. Amaury (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and M. Laborde, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark BALLON D’OR — European Union trade mark No 4 226 148

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2021 in Case R 1073/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law