ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/26

Appeal brought on 8 January 2014 by Peter Schönberger against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12, Schönberger v Court of Auditors

(Case T-26/14 P)

2014/C 93/45

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by O. Mader, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 November 2013 in Case F-14/12 (Schönberger v Court of Auditors);

— allow the applicant’s claims at first instance;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on seven grounds of appeal.

1. First ground of appeal: The Civil Service Tribunal failed to give a ruling on the first plea in law, according to which, with only three positions available for promotions in the promotion year 2011, the five-year average for 2007 until 2011 stated in the Staff Regulations was missed by 10 positions.

2. Second ground of appeal: The appellant claims that, by declaring the promotion years 2010 until 2014 to be the five-year period at issue, the judgment under appeal distorts the position of the parties.

3. Third ground of appeal: The appellant submits that the applicant’s rights of defence were infringed because he was not given an opportunity to comment on the five-year period considered relevant by the Civil Service Tribunal.

4. Fourth ground of appeal: The appellant alleges a failure to state reasons because the judgment under appeal does not explain why the five-year period from 2010 until 2014 must be accepted as the reference period.

5. Fifth ground of appeal: The appellant complains that, by its interpretation of the Staff Regulations, the Civil Service Tribunal goes against the clearly-expressed intention of the legislature to start with a new five-year period in the year 2014.

6. Sixth ground of appeal: The appellant complains here that, by basing its judgment on an interpretation of the Staff Regulations which was explicitly rejected by the defendant, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the adjustment to the costs of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) in the present case constitutes a violation of Article 2 (5) of the basic Regulation. More specifically, the applicant submits the following claims: — The necessary evidence on the basis of which it was concluded that the CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted is missing and the Council and the European Commission (hereafter ‘the Institutions’) committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted; — By using the reference export price (‘HPE’) to adjust the costs, the Institutions did not adjust the costs on ‘a reasonable basis’ as mandated by Article 2 (5) of the basic Regulation and/or on the basis of ‘sources which are unaffected by such distortions’; and — Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not allow to adjust costs in situations in which prices are simply and allegedly ‘low’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/46

Action brought on 17 January 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks v Commission

(Case T-49/14)

2014/C 112/59

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckerhandwerks e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Implementing Decision of 14 November 2013 concerning the rejection of a request to cancel a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Kołocz śląski/kołacz śląski (PGI)) (notified under document C(2013) 7626).

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an incorrect legal basis — The applicant claims that the defendant based the contested decision, unlawfully, on the new version of Regulation (EU) 1151/2012 (1) applicable when the decision was adopted rather than on the older version Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (2) applicable at the time of the applicant’s request. The defendant thereby infringed the principle expressed by the maxim ‘tempus regit actum’. — The applicant also argues that the request to cancel the entry is admissible and well founded under Regulation No 510/2006. It states in this context inter alia that there are two reasons for the cancellation (the indication at issue is a generic name within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 510/2006; the geographical area Silesia is incorrectly defined in the specification of the registration) within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 510/2006 and that a divergent interpretation and application of that provision would impinge upon the fundamental rights of bakery businesses in the Federal Republic.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1151/2012 — The applicant claims that the request would even be admissible and well founded were it to be assessed on the basis of Regulation No 1151/2012.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/22

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Advertising articles)

(Case T-41/14)

2014/C 129/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra'anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

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

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2013 given in Case R 981/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘advertising articles’ — registered under No 1684325-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked novelty (Article 5 CDR) and individual character (Article 6 CDR)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 CDR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/33

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Bunge Argentina v Council

(Case T-116/14)

2014/C 129/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bunge Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/41

Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)

(Case T-11/14)

2014/C 135/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pianissimo’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 266

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/55

Action brought on 25 February 2014 — I Castellani v OHIM — Chomarat (Device of a circle)

(Case T-137/14)

2014/C 135/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: I Castellani Srl (Meldola, Italy) (represented by: M. Caramelli, F. Boscariol de Roberto, I. Gatto and D. Martucci, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie Chomarat (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2013 given in Case R 1001/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark representing a device of a circle for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark registration No 2 844 033

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: It revoked the registration of Community trade mark No 2 844 033

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/40

Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)

(Case T-125/14)

2014/C 142/52

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GAP (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 686/2013-1;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a figurative mark containing the word element ‘GAPPol’ for goods and services in Classes 20, 25 and 37 — Application No 8 346 165 for a Community trade mark.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word marks ‘GAP’, Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, as well as national word marks ‘GAP’ and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/30

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex)

(Case T-187/14)

2014/C 151/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 357/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Flex’ for goods in Class 10 — Community trade mark application No 10 866 887

Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/34

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council

(Case T-158/14)

2014/C 159/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai, Chine); Yangzhou JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Yangzhou, Chine); Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Hefei, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai); et JA Solar GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/23

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — LDC Argentina v Council

(Case T-118/14)

2014/C 151/31

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: LDC Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/28

Action brought on 4 April 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)

(Case T-216/14)

2014/C 194/36

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1788/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EXTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69 155

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/48

Action brought on 19 March 2014 — Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA)

(Case T-195/14)

2014/C 175/66

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Reeh (Radnice, Czech Republic)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 January 2014 in case R 2304/2012-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Gerhard Reeh

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘PRIMA KLIMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘PRIMAGAZ’ and national word marks ‘PRIMALOTISSEMENT’, ‘PRIMACOMPTEUR’, ‘PRIMAVILLAGE’, ‘PRIMAFAMILLE’, ‘PRIMAPAC’, ‘PRIMAENERGY’, ‘PRIMA CHAUFFAGE’, ‘PRIMA CLIM’, ‘PRIMAGRILL’ and ‘PRIMAWATT’, for goods in Class 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: Reject the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/42

Appeal brought on 19 May 2014 by CR against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014 in Case F-128/12, CR v Parliament

(Case T-342/14 P)

2014/C 212/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: CR (Malling, France) (represented by A. Salerno, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 March 2014;

— itself settle the dispute between the appellant and the European Parliament, by annulling the decision which the appellant challenged before the Civil Service Tribunal, in so far as that decision requires him to reimburse all the sums which he unlawfully received in respect of family allowances; or

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant contests the rejection of the objection of illegality brought against the last sentence of the second paragraph of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials. In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty.
—

The applicant submits that, first, insofar as, they fail to state the grounds, the Contested Decisions and Regulations thus infringe the applicant’s rights of defence. Second, the illegality of the Contested Decisions and Regulations affects these proceedings since on the one hand it hampers the possibility for the applicant to present a defence and, on the other hand, the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations is impaired. It follows that the rights of the applicant to an effective judicial remedy are violated. Third, insofar as the applicant has been deprived of his rights of defence and since the Court’s ability to carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Contested Decisions and Regulations relating to fund freezing measures — which are by their very nature ‘particularly oppressive’ — is undermined, the applicant was imposed an unjustified restriction of his right to property.