ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council

(Case T-551/18)

(2018/C 427/114)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

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 that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Hickies v EUIPO (Shape of a shoe lace)

(Case T-573/18)

(2018/C 408/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hickies, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor and J. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union three-dimensional mark (Shape of a shoe lace) — Application for registration No 16 952 962

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2018 in Case R 2693/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal in relation to ‘shoe laces; shoe ornaments made of plastic; shoe trimmings; accessories for apparel, sewing articles and decorative textile articles; shoe buckles; shoe fasteners’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 September 2018 — Medrobotics v EUIPO (See More. Reach More. Treat More.)

(Case T-555/18)

(2018/C 427/118)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medrobotics Corp. (Raynham, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: B. Bittner and U. Heinrich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark See More. Reach More. Treat More. — Application for registration No 17 205 055

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2018 in Case R 463/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Shore Capital International v EUIPO — Circle Imperium (The Inner Circle)

(Case T-575/18)

(2018/C 427/123)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shore Capital International Ltd (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Circle Imperium BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 mark The Inner Circle — International registration designating the European Union No 1 266 666

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 June 2018 in Case R 1402/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, insofar as it dismisses the appeal of the applicant against the decision of the defendant's Opposition Division dated 26 April 2017, and thus upholds the IR holder's application for protection of the international trademark ‘The Inner Circle’ (No. 1 266 666) in the European Union for class 41;

— order the IR holder and the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 September 2018 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

(Case T-595/18)

(2018/C 436/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark berlinGas — Application for registration No 15 252 661

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2018 in Case R 2180/2016-1

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 Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of the procedural framework to conduct appraisal reports as laid down by the ECHA decision and in particular by Article 7, as well as a violation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, applicable by analogy to temporary staff by virtue of article 15 of the CEOS.
—

in this respect, the applicant requests that EIB be ordered to pay him: — EUR 30 000 as unpaid salary for 42 days of annual leave and 40,5 days in the TSA-A, amounting to a total of 82,5 leave entitlements; — EUR 30 000 illegally deducted from the sums upon his departure; — EUR 50 000 as 3 % contribution of the annual salary into the OSPS (RCVP) until the normal age of retirement; — EUR 35 000 as the applicant’s bonus entitlement; — EUR 15 000 as damages in relation to the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; — his legal fees for the proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000; — the costs of proceedings and all the costs.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex III to those Regulations and of Article 3 of Annex III to the Notice of Competition (‘General Rules Governing Open Competitions’). — The applicant relies in that regard on the allegedly irregular designation of the members of the selection board. — The applicant further refers to a lack of publication of the decisions appointing the selection board and of the names of all the members of the Selection Board. — The applicant cites non-equal representation with regard to staff committee/appointing authority representation on the selection board. — The applicant also cites non-equal representation on that board from a gender balance perspective. — Finally, in regard to that plea, the applicant alleges violation of the principle of stability and continuity of the selection board.
Action brought on 13 October 2018 — EO (1) v Commission

(Case T-623/18)

(2019/C 4/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EO (2) (represented by: E. Metodieva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 12 December 2017 of the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/323/16 — Investigators (AD 7) for the following profiles: 1. Investigators: EU expenditure, anti-corruption; 2. Investigators: Customs and trade, tobacco and counterfeit goods, not to include the applicant’s name in the reserve list for the first profile of the said competition;

— set aside in its entirety EPSO’s decision of 9 July 2018 to reject the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations regarding the decision of the EPSO selection board not to include her in the said reserve list;

— order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant in the form of lost benefits as a result of her non-inclusion in the said reserve list,

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the expenses for legal assistance and legal representation before and during the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law and, in addition, relies on all the arguments listed in the complaint made by her under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

1. First plea in law, alleging inadequate behaviour on the part of one of the members of the selection board, allegedly resulting in a failure to examine the applicant properly.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the lack of impartiality of one of the members of the selection board for the competition in question.

3. Third plea in law, alleging lack of competence of the assessors.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the competition in question violated the language regime.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that certain irregularities affected the case study in the competition in question.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of equal and fair treatment said to result from the allegedly excessive period of one month over which the competition in question was carried out.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the applicant’s assessment.

(1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(2) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2018 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA

(Case T-675/18)

(2019/C 25/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trifolio-M GmbH (Lahnau, Germany), Oxon Italia SpA (Milan, Italy) and Mitsui AgriScience International (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul EFSA’s decision of 11 September 2018 on the assessment of the applicants’ confidentiality claims made in relation to the conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 63 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. (1) — The applicants allege that the defendant misinterpreted what amounts to information involving industrial and commercial secrets that merit confidential treatment, and misapplied Article 63 of Regulation 1107/2009 based on a manifest error of assessment of the applicants 'confidentiality claims.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the fundamental principles of EU law to the extent that the defendant failed to state reasons for its decision, to conform to the uniform application of EU law or to abide by the principle of proportionality.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2018 — "Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-681/18)

(2019/C 25/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO "Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, 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 figurative mark STAYER — European Union trade mark No 4 675 881

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 in Case R 1940/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 November 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)

(Case T-690/18)

(2019/C 35/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Vita — European Union trade mark No 9 993 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 in Case R 695/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2018 — LegalCareers v EUIPO (LEGALCAREERS)

(Case T-686/18)

(2019/C 25/75)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LegalCareers GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Mark at issue: Application for registration of EU figurative mark LEGALCAREERS — Application No 9 978 594

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 in Case R 234/2018-4

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 Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2018 — Siberia Oriental v CPVO (Siberia)

(Case T-737/18)

(2019/C 54/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Siberia Oriental BV (‘t Zand, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Overdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community plant variety right at issue: Community plant variety right No EU0404 (‘Siberia’ variety of Lilium L.)

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 15 October 2018 in Case A 009/2017

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or set aside the contested decision;

— order CPVO to change the expiration date in the Register to 30 April 2020.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 November 2018 — ZPC Flis v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (FLIS Happy Moreno choco)

(Case T-708/18)

(2019/C 44/102)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ZPC Flis sp.j. (Radziejowice, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

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 FLIS Happy Moreno choco — Application for registration No 15 030 786

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2018 in Case R 2113/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to EUIPO for reconsideration; or

— alter the contested decision by stating that there are no relative grounds for refusal of registration of the EUTMA 015030786 ‘Flis Happy Moreno choco’ for all the goods and services in classes 30 and 35, and the trademark shall be registered;

— award the costs in the applicant’s favour.

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 20 December 2018 — Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)

(Case T-747/18)

(2019/C 72/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (Trud, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of a flower) — Application for registration No 16 544 025

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2018 in Case R 2518/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Action brought on 26 November 2018 — Durand and Others v Parliament

(Case T-702/18)

(2019/C 65/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pascal Durand (Paris, France) and seven other applicants (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare that the Parliament has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 226(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 198(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, by the failure of the Conference of Presidents to submit to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry;

— in subsidiary order, in the event that the General Court would hold that the letter of 21 September 2018 of the President of the Parliament contains an unequivocal and final position putting an end to the failure to act, annul the decision contained in the letter of 21 September 2018 to refuse to submit to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal for the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of possible intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit that the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament was required to formulate and send to the plenary of the European Parliament a proposal on the setting up of a Committee of Inquiry, concerning the welfare of animals in transport, as requested by 223 Members of the European Parliament, pursuant to Article 198(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and in accordance with Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. A decision refusing to do so would breach these same articles.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31, 46 and 55 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The applicant claims in that regard that, in accordance with those provisions, a protective freezing and confiscation measure must be based on either a decision of the requesting State Party or a statement of relevant facts made by that same State Party with a description of the measures requested. According to the applicant, the restrictive measures were ordered and extended without even a brief statement of the facts complained of. In addition, Tunisia does not seek the maintenance of the restrictive measures at issue.
4.

Unlawfulness of the order for recovery — In the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicant submits that the recovery of a minimum charge in the amount of 20 % of the published network charges with reference to the version of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV applicable until 3 August 2011 is arbitrary and at variance with the principle of non-discrimination. — It is further claimed that only the determination of the network charges by means of the physical path ensures the observance of the cost-causality principle and the payment of reasonable and non-discriminatory network charges. — The recovery order also infringes the principle of non-discrimination in that the Commission failed to take into account the transitional arrangement in Paragraph 32(3) of the StromNEV. — Lastly, it is claimed that baseload consumers and atypical network users within the meaning of the first sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differ substantially. The fact that both groups of network users, notwithstanding their differences, have to pay a minimum charge in the amount of 20 % is not objectively justified.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Karlovarské minerální vody v EUIPO — Aguas de San Martín de Veri (VERITEA)

(Case T-28/19)

(2019/C 82/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Karlovarské minerální vody a.s. (Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Mrázek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aguas de San Martín de Veri, SA (Bisaurri, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant in the proceedings before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union trade mark VERITEA — Application No 15 592 876

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2018 in Case R 499/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opponent’s opposition;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law