ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 29 April 2020 — HB v EIB

(Case T-234/20)

(2020/C 215/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul (i) the 2017 performance appraisal and (ii) the decision of the adjudication panel, rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her 2017 performance appraisal;

— order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the loss of a chance, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment until payment in full has been made;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the claim for annulment of the performance appraisal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and of the right to confidentiality, insofar as, by commenting on the applicant’s alleged improper behaviour with a senior manager in June 2017 in the performance appraisal, X breached the principle of good administration as well as the applicant’s right to confidentiality.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers, insofar as the applicant claims that she was harassed by X during the reporting period, that (i) as a result, X did not have the objectivity to assess her performance and thus vitiated his comments and marks with manifest error, and (ii) the appraisal report was adopted with the intention of harming the applicant and is thus vitiated by misuse of powers

In support of her claim for the annulment of the appeal panel’s decision, the applicant relies on two further pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, insofar as procedural irregularities were committed by the adjudication panel (irregular notice to the hearing, irregular adoption of the decision in contumaciam), in the absence of which the outcome of the procedure might have been different.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard, insofar as, as a result of the procedural irregularities committed, the applicant was not present at the hearing of the adjudication panel and was thus not heard.

In support of her damages claim, the applicant argues that, by rejecting her request for conciliation, illegally, the defendant deprived the applicant of a chance of settling the matter amicably and avoiding proceedings before the General Court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot)

(Case T-327/20)

(2020/C 240/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands)

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 (Douchegoot) — European Union design No 107 834 0025

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 in Case R 2664/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare invalid, correcting the grounds as necessary, the European Union design of Easy Sanitary Solutions BV;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law

— Infringement of Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

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

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)

(Case T-326/20)

(2020/C 247/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bibita Group (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 3 797 091-0001 (Beverage bottles)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2020 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 3 797 091-0001 invalid, on all the grounds set out in the present 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
2.

Against the decision to reject the applicant’s request for assistance, the applicant relies on five pleas in law: — First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to provide assistance; — Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 12a of the of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’); — Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations and error of law; — Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be effectively heard; — Fifth plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the evidence submitted for assessment.
Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5 of the said SRB decision of 25 March 2015 and breach of the duty of care.

With regard to the request for compensation, the applicant relies on the fault committed by the defendant, the damage he suffered, and the link between the fault and the damage.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 May 2020 — Telefónica Germany v EUIPO — Google (LOOP)

(Case T-305/20)

(2020/C 247/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU work mark LOOP — EU trade mark No 5 842 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2020 in Case R 281/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— pay the costs arising from the court proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the defendant and of the other parties before the Board of Appeal, should such other parties join the litigation.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Acciona v EUIPO — Agencia Negociadora PB (REACCIONA)

(Case T-362/20)

(2020/C 255/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Acciona, SA (Alcobendas, Spain) (represented by J. C. Erdozain López, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agencia Negociadora PB, SL (Las Rozas, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Word mark REACCIONA — European Union trade mark No 8 605 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2020 in Case R 652/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, in the event that it appears before the Court and contests the present action, the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant insufficiently assessed the facts and should have undertaken a Phase II-procedure in the context of an appropriate assessment. — The analysis of RWE’s increasing market power was carried out only on the basis of electricity volume and capacity, without the necessary own in-depth examination of additional indicators such as the elimination of its direct competitor E.ON, the Residual Supply Index (RSI), which expresses the indispensability of a supplier to meet demand, or the degree of market concentration — By disregarding the long-term investment cycles of the energy sector, the defendant adopted a too short-term view of the historical and also the prognostic period for assessing the effects of the merger; — The market power was erroneously assessed because the extensive integration of RWE and E.ON in the energy market was not taken into account and instead capacities from the reverse carve-out in Case M.8870 were netted; — In general, the examination is erroneously limited to the present and ignored the effects for the coming years (e.g. through the increasing generation of green electricity and the phasing-out of coal), so that the defendant is unable to recognise whether there is a threat of lasting damage to competition.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU in that the contested decision does not comply with the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 April 2015 (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29) and of the judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 (T-689/16, not published, EU:T:2018:925) in the light of the grounds constituting their essential bases, in so far as they are necessary for the purpose of determining the exact meaning of what is stated in the operative part.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to such pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Denmark by authorising Denmark to reserve aid only to SAS. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.
Action brought on 3 July 2020 — KS v Frontex

(Case T-409/20)

(2020/C 279/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KS (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the dismissal decision of 30 August 2019 and, in so far as necessary, the express decision rejecting the complaint dated 23 March 2020;

— annul the decision rejecting the request for assistance and compensation dated 13 February 2020;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for non-contractual liability, set at EUR 250 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision to terminate his contract as a member of the contract staff, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the right to be heard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the status of ‘informer’ provided for in Articles 21a(3) and 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).

3. Third plea in law, alleging abuse of process.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to a fair hearing, specifically the rights of the defence, the presumption of innocence, the duty of care and the duty of impartiality, neutrality and objectivity, alleging a failure to carry out an investigation in order to establish whether the grounds for the breach of trust were genuine and justified, and alleging inequality between agents.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to provide assistance and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, the duty of sound administration and infringement of the principle of proportionality.

In support of the action against the decision rejecting his request for assistance, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and infringement of the right to be heard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the status of ‘informer’ provided for in Articles 21a(3) and 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

In support of the action against the decision rejecting his claim for compensation, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of sound administration in connection with any agent’s well-being at work and working conditions.
Action brought on 2 July 2020 — KR v Commission

(Case T-408/20)

(2020/C 279/65)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KR (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 25 October 2019 to no longer regard the applicant’s child as being his dependent child within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Commission misconstrued, first, the concept of dependent child referred to in Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and, second, revised Conclusion No 223/04 of 30 January 2013 of the Heads of Administration of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 July 2020 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY)

(Case T-461/20)

(2020/C 287/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) (Villeurbanne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and A. Sion, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY — EU trade mark No 11 048 147

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 661/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 8 July 2020 — Techniplan v Commission

(Case T-426/20)

(2020/C 279/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find and declare that the European Commission infringed Article 263 TFEU, in breach of the essential procedural requirements provided for in connection with the adoption of an act which, in the present case, has a direct and individual effect on Techniplan, in so far as it failed to take account of the letter by which the applicant objected to the pre-information and the applicant’s letter of formal notice under Article 265 TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay an amount of compensation to the applicant for each day of delay in compliance and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision and simultaneous debit note of 28 May 2020, issued against Techniplan s.r.l., demanding payment of EUR 107 505,66 in respect of the project FED/2011/261-985.

In support of the action, the applicant alleges failure to observe the principles of legal certainty and transparency and infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims in this regard:

— that the final audit report drawn up by a private company showed a series of alleged discrepancies and irregularities in the execution of the works which were disputed in detail by the applicant company, highlighting a number of serious inaccuracies contained in that audit report;

— that the applicant company submitted declarations by all the experts involved in the project, made before the Congolese judicial authorities, attesting their actual presence on the works sites;

— that the experts were regularly recruited and used by Techniplan in the execution of the works provided for in the contract;

— that the applicant company was unjustifiably excluded from the continuation of the contract;
—

annul the decision taken on 13 November 2019 (ARES 2019 7018535 — 13/11/2019) that refers to partial rejection of eligible costs and recovery of the EU contribution and that requires the applicant to pay liquidated damages;
—

in the alternative: (i) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requests irrelevant documents; (ii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in order that independent EU-qualified lawyers may be permitted to conduct a relevance review of the documents captured by the Marketplace Document Request in order to exclude from production documents that are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation and/or personal documents; and/or (iii) partially annul Article 1 of the Contested Marketplace Decision in so far as it unlawfully requires production of irrelevant documents that are personal or private in nature;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Industria de Diseño Textil v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)

(Case T-467/20)

(2020/C 304/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil; SA (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy)

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 word mark ZARA — Application for registration No 89 29952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2040/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 35 and 43 and reject the existence of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for all the contested goods and services;

— order EUIPO and if the case might be, the other party in proceedings before the EUIPO, to pay the costs of the current appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging the need, in the case in point, for a specific and non-formalistic interpretation of Article 7.2 of the European Electoral Act of 1976, in so far as it was not materially incompatible with that act for Mr Junqueras, who was suspended from his position as a deputy in the Congress of Deputies at the relevant time and whose remuneration and other entitlements related to that office were also suspended and who was, in addition, maintained in that role against his will by being prevented physically and materially and against his will from resigning, to resign from that position in order to take up his position as a Member of the European Parliament.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2020 — Selmikeit & Giczella v EUIPO — Boehmert & Boehmert (HALLOWIENER)

(Case T-500/20)

(2020/C 329/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Selmikeit & Giczella GmbH (Osterode, Germany) (represented by: S. Keute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB — Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte (Bremen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark HALLOWIENER — European Union trade mark No 9 369 489

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2020 in Case R 1893/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of contested mark No 9 369 489 HALLOWIENER.

Plea in law
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 15 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 19 February 2020 seeking the recognition of his right to a resettlement allowance in the event that the General Court of the European Union or the Court of Justice of the European Union recognises that right in respect of the applicants in case T-387/19, DF and DG v EIB.