ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-388/20)

(2020/C 262/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland — COVID –19: State loan guarantee for Finnair (1); and,

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicant has also requested that its action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by considering that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Finnish economy and by violating the obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).

2. Second 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 Finland by authorising Finland to reserve aid to Finnair only. Article 107(3)(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.

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

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision violated the Commission’s duty to state reasons.

(1) European Commission Decision (EU) of 18 May 2020 on State Aid SA.56809 (2020/N) — Finland -- COVID-19: State loan guarantee for Finnair (not yet published in the Official Journal)
3.

Third plea in law, alleging failure to observe the principle of equality in so far as the selection panel, by assessing the candidates on the basis of criteria different to those set out in the competition notice, failed to ensure that objectivity and impartiality were respected in the assessment of the candidates’ professional experience.
Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission

(Case T-347/20)

(2020/C 271/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sogia Ellas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Bernitsas, M. Androulakaki, A. Patsalia and E. Kalogiannis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible;

— annul the decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; (1)

— in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the amounts of aid at issue in total or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and lack of reasoning on the part of the Commission concerning the existence of State aid: the criteria of economic advantage, selectivity and distortion of competition are not met.

2. Second plea in law, claiming that the contested measures constitute compatible aid within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons for the decision, and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) and that the decision was adopted in breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2020/394 of 7 October 2019 concerning the measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees linked to the fires of 2007 (notified under document C(2019) 7094) (OJ 2020 L 76, p. 4)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Action brought on 14 July 2020 — KZ v Commission

(Case T-453/20)

(2020/C 287/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the list of promoted officials adopted by Administrative Notice No 32-2019/14.11.2019 of 14 November 2019 inasmuch as it does not include the name of the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, raising a plea of illegality in respect of the General Implementing Provisions (‘the GIPs’) for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’). The applicant contests the interpretation given by the Commission, which considers that Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations means that an official who is on leave on personal grounds on the date when the promotion decision is adopted by the appointing authority is not eligible for the promotion exercise concluded thereby. On the contrary, the applicant puts forward a teleological and systematic interpretation of Article 40(3) of the Staff Regulations and submits that the Commission, by its interpretation, infringes the right to promotion under Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. In his view, the Commission also infringes the principle of legal certainty, the principle that the statutory provisions of which those GIPs form part should be consistent, and the principle of equal treatment in terms of career development under Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations. Lastly, he complains that the consequences of implementing the GIPs are illogical and disproportionate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 July 2020 — Jindal Saw and Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

(Case T-440/20)

(2020/C 297/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India), Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/527 of 15 April 2020 re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron) originating in India as regards Jindal Saw Limited following the judgment of the General Court in T-301/16;

— order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and of the general principle of non-retroactivity.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of non-retroactivity and the general principle of legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and Article 264 TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and Article 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 103 of the Union Customs Code and Article 296 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 July 2020 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (Geographical Norway)

(Case T-460/20)

(2020/C 287/66)

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 figurative mark Geographical Norway — EU trade mark No 10 015 352

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 662/2019-1

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 28 July 2020 — Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission

(Case T-480/20)

(2020/C 304/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics SAE (Ain Sukhna, Egypt), Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry SAE (Ain Sukhna) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 of 12 June 2020 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China and Egypt (1) and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China and Egypt, in as far as it relates to the applicants;

— order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for calculating the applicants’ subsidy margin violates Articles 1(1), 5(1), 6, 12(1)(c) and 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail financial contributions granted by Chinese public bodies violates Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(1)(a), 4(2) and 4(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision regarding the provisions of land to Jushi violates the applicants’ rights of defence and Article 30 as well as Articles 3(2), 5 and 6(d) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the import tariff rebate scheme for imported materials for Jushi violates Articles 3(1)(a)(ii), 3(2) and 5 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision to countervail the tax treatment of foreign exchange losses violates Articles 3(2) and 4(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

6. Sixth plea in law alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting margin with regard to the applicants violates Articles 1(1), 2(d), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

(1) OJ 2020 L 189, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification) (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 July 2020 — Magnetec v EUIPO (CoolTUBE)

(Case T-481/20)

(2020/C 304/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec — Gesellschaft für Magnettechnologie mbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark CoolTUBE — Application for registration No 18 022 606

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 1755/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

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

Action brought on 16 August 2020– JT v EUIPO — Carrasco Pirard and Others (QUILAPAYÚN)

(Case T-197/20)

(2020/C 320/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: JT (represented by: A. Mena Valenzuela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo Carrasco Pirard and seven others (Santiago de Chile, Chile)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative trade mark QUILAPAYÚN — Application for registration No 9 267 287

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Case R 1518/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Annul or revoke the contested decision, upholding all claims in favour of that party.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 6a(1a) of the Paris Convention.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)

(Case T-493/20)

(2020/C 320/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark SFORA WEAR — Application for registration No 15 853 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2030/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25;

— order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — Mandelay v EUIPO — Qx World (QUEST 9)

(Case T-516/20)

(2020/C 339/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mandelay Magyarország Kereskedelmi Kft. (Mandelay Kft.) (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary) (represented by: V. Luszcz, C. Sár and É. Ulviczki, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Qx World Kft. (Budapest, Hungary)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark QUEST 9 — Application for registration No 17 885 953

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2020 in Case R 1900/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— should there be an intervention, to order the intervener to bear the costs of the applicant incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 97 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements;
Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission

(Case T-510/20)

(2020/C 329/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV (Berlin, Germany) and LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as the defendant definitively rejected the complaint of the applicants in relation to Measure 3, namely the reduction of trade tax and income tax or corporation tax as a result of the deduction of the amounts paid in connection with the transfer of profits (‘profit skimming’) under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (Law on Public Casinos of North Rhine-Westphalia) from the basis of assessment of those taxes in North Rhine-Westphalia, and thus refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to that measure;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019)8819 final of 9 December 2019 on State Aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2016/FC) Tax treatment of public casinos operators in Germany and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) Alleged guarantee for public casinos operators in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie) — Germany.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the procedural rights of the applicants in that it refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation also to Measure 3. That plea in law is divided into four parts:

— Failure to take account of the rules established by EU case-law in classifying the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax — Adoption of an erroneous premiss as the basis for the investigation.

— Non-classification of the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax under the relevant provisions of German law.

— Inappropriateness of the arguments relied on by the defendant in support of the fiscal nature of the transfer of profits.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — Upper Echelon Products v EUIPO (Everlasting Comfort)

(Case T-562/20)

(2020/C 371/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Upper Echelon Products LLC (Austin, Texas, United States) (represented by: M. Izquierdo Blanco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Everlasting Comfort — Application for registration No 11 429 637

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 in Case R 952/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and grant trademark No 11 429 637 for all the products requested;

— order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
Action brought on 04 September 2020 — Sharpston v Council and Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

(Case T-550/20)

(2020/C 348/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eleanor Sharpston (Schoenfels, Luxembourg) (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law and J. Flynn, QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States appointing three Judges and an Advocate General to the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated 2 September 2020, in so far as it purports to appoint Mr Anathasios Rantos as Advocate General of the Court of Justice with effect from 7 September 2020;

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

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 an error of law in the interpretation of Article 50(3) TEU. It is argued that neither that Article nor any other provision of EU primary law produced or required the automatic termination of the applicant’s mandate as Advocate General, which expires on 6 October 2021. There was accordingly no vacant post to which Mr. Rantos could lawfully be appointed.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the constitutional principle in EU law of the independence of the judiciary. By taking a position on what it knew to be a contested and controversial question relating to the mandate of a serving member of the Court of Justice, the contested decision bypasses the safeguards put in place by EU primary law (in particular in Title I of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union) in order peremptorily to remove that member of the Court of Justice from office.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-565/20)

(2020/C 378/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, 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: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, États-Unis)

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 1 253 876-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 297/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law