ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

The applicant invokes the infringement of the principles at issue in so far as: (i) the seat of the EMA was selected by just one institution, the Council, on completion of the decision-making process resulting in the decision of 20 November 2017, which determined the content of the contested Regulation (namely the location of the seat of the EMA in Amsterdam) outside, and prior to the start of, the ordinary legislative procedure; (ii) throughout the selection procedure for the EMA’s seat, in the course of which the decision-making process was exhausted, the Council and the Commission — the only two institutions involved in the selection procedure — did not involve the Parliament; (iii) using the ordinary legislative procedure, the Council and the Commission presented the Parliament with the fait accompli of the selection (already made) of the seat in Amsterdam; (iv) the Council and the Commission did not leave the Parliament any scope to assess or question that decision; instead, they made every effort to conclude the legislative procedure in the shortest possible time; (v) the Parliament was prevented from performing its own function, even though this is laid down in the Treaties, and during the ordinary legislative procedure was forced, against its will, to ‘ratify’ the decision taken by the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 February 2019 — Sixsigma Networks Mexico v EUIPO — Dokkio (DOKKIO)

(Case T-67/19)

(2019/C 112/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV (Mexico city, Mexico) (represented by: C. Casas Feu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dokkio, Inc. (San Mateo, California, United States)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark DOKKIO — International registration designating the European Union No 1 308 971

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2018 in Case R 1187/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it rejects opposition B 2800087;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV;

— order Dokkio, Inc. to pay the costs incurred by Sixsigma Networks Mexico, SA de CV.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI moneypersonalassistant)

(Case T-93/19)

(2019/C 139/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 AI moneypersonalassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 188

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1055/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

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

Action brought on 7 February 2019 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood splitting tools)

(Case T-73/19)

(2019/C 122/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag (Saltsjö-Boo, Sweden) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, V. Dalichau and B. Breitinger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH (Ichenhausen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 289 243-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 in Case R 1455/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alternatively, amend the contested decision and rule that the appeal is justified;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencymachineassistant)

(Case T-88/19)

(2019/C 139/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, 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 currencymachineassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 071

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1059/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

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

Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Off-White v EUIPO (OFF-WHITE)

(Case T-133/19)

(2019/C 139/107)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Off-White LLC (Springfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark OFF-WHITE — Application for registration No 17 360 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 in Case R 580/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in any event, order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred OFF-WHITE LLC before the present Court and the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— The contested decision did not take into account previous practice and violates the legal principles of sound administration, legal certainty and equal treatment.

— Infringement of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-61/19)

(2019/C 139/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

— In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they in fringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kanyama v Council

(Case T-123/19)

(2019/C 139/103)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 March 2019 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)

(Case T-180/19)

(2019/C 164/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bibita Group SHPK (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 3797 091-0001 (Beverage bottles)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 1070/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the contested Community design registered under No 3797 091-0001 invalid, on all the grounds set in the application;

— order the defendant and the proprietor to pay the procedural costs relating to the proceedings before the Third Board of Appeal, pursuant to Article 190 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;

— order EUIPO and the potential other party to the present proceedings to pay the entirety of the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture)

(Case T-159/19)

(2019/C 155/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1384 002-0034

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 in Case R 291/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings and reimburse the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
—

as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the harm suffered by the applicant at an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement, first, of Article 78 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p.1) and, secondly, of the rights of the defence. The applicants submit in that regard that in the present case no administrative decision relating to a recovery order was brought to their attention before the adoption of the contested decisions concerning recovery of overpayments.
—

annul the decisions dated 7 August 2018 adopted by the defendant, which reject the applicant’s requests for recognition of the occupational origin of two diseases (neck pain and stress-related urticaria) and, so far as necessary, annul the decision of 19 February 2019 by which the defendant rejected the complaint brought on 16 October 2018 by the applicant against the decisions of 7 August 2018;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals v EUIPO — Dalmat (LaTV3D)

(Case T-135/19)

(2019/C 148/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Corporació Catalana de Mitjans Audiovisuals, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stéphane Dalmat (Paris, France)

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 LaTV3D — Application for registration No 15 630 833

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2018 in Case R 874/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

Infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, manifest errors of assessment and incorrect implementation of, or failure to comply with, the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803) In the context of the first plea, the applicant claims that the appointing authority of the defendant infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), made manifest errors of assessment and failed to implement, or incorrectly implemented, the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803), in so far as that authority did not treat the applicant as though it had, at the material times, allowed him to take part in the individual reporting procedures, but instead carried out an overall assessment when the contested decisions were adopted on 6 June 2018. The refusal to promote the applicant should, in accordance with that judgment, not have been based on circumstances which, at the time when the appointing authority would have been required to make a decision, were not yet known to the Office. The applicant further submits that the overall refusal to promote him for four consecutive years by reference to the same conduct is unlawful because it constitutes a similarly severe penalty to that of Article 9(1)(e) and (f) of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations and therefore ultimately constitutes a sustained and punitive refusal to promote him which circumvents the rights of the defence to which he is entitled in disciplinary proceedings, as well as ‘double jeopardy’. The applicant also claims that the contested decisions of the Office unlawfully discriminated against him on account of his long-term illness, since the defendant did not positively count the time of his illness as time in which he had improved the conduct for which he was reproached, which constitutes a manifest error of assessment and a misapplication of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and the judgment of 14 November 2017, Vincenti v EUIPO (T-586/16, EU:T:2017:803).
Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/19)

(2019/C 213/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH (Arnsberg, Germany), Wepa Leuna GmbH (Leuna, Germany), Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH (Arnsberg) (represented by: H. Janssen and A. Vallone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission, notified under document C(2018) 3166 (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1), of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 of the Stromnetzentgeltverordnung (Regulation on electricity network charges); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the exemption from network usage charges is not aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

In that regard, the applicants first claim that the exemption from network usage charges did not entail the use of State or State-granted resources. It is further claimed that the defendant erred when considering that the Paragraph 19 surcharge constitutes a ‘levy’ or ‘parafiscal levy’ imposed by the State on end-users within the meaning of the judgment of 17 July 2008, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others (C-206/06, EU:C:2008:413).

It is further submitted that the baseload consumers were not granted a selective advantage.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Articles 82 and 83 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, the principles of proportionality and the right to be heard, the right to good administration and the duty of care, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to be treated fairly and impartially and the prohibition of psychological harassment.
Action brought on 9 May 2019 — VG v Commission

(Case T-299/19)

(2019/C 230/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: VG (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 6 March 2019 taken with a view to complying with the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Joined Cases T-314/16 and T-435/16, VG v Commission in so far as it refuses the transfer of certain personal data to the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 20 000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and a failure to take account of the force of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018, VG v Commission (T-314/16 and T-435/16, EU:T:2018:841).

The applicant further requests compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the refusal set out in the decision of 6 March 2019.
3.

The third plea in law is based on manifest error of assessment of the law and relevant facts of the case at issue with respect to the finding of the European Commission which is contained in section 3.3.1.3 and in section 3.3.1.4 of the contested decision in relation to the affirmation of the criterion of the principle of necessity and the principle of proportionality.
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-331/19)

(2019/C 246/44)

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 17 515 099

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2019 in Case R 1223/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the registration of EU trade mark No 17 515 099 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 27 May 2019 — Maternus v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Jokers WILD Casino)

(Case T-321/19)

(2019/C 238/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maternus GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Zöbisch and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Jokers WILD Casino in black, red, yellow and white — EU trade mark No 9 515 321

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2019 in Case R 803/2018-1

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 first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;