ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, abuse of process and breach of the reasonable time period for instituting proceedings. The applicant claims that the Parliament committed an abuse of process, thereby affecting the applicant’s exercise of his rights of defence inasmuch as, after nearly three terms without any claim on the part of the Secretary-General, the applicant did not consider it necessary to keep evidence of the work done by his assistants, and is unable to answer the court.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 266 TFEU as it would have reapplied de facto decision C(2010) 727 (final) of 8 February 2010 or Commission decision C(2016) 3920 of 29 June 2016 which both would have been annulled by the General Court by the judgment of 15 July 2015, GEA Group v Commission, T-189/10, EU:T:2015:504 and by the judgment of 18 October 2018, GEA Group v Commission, T-640/16, EU:T:2018:700 respectively.
Action brought on 5 April 2019 — Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale and Others v Commission

(Case T-210/19)

(2019/C 213/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Società Agricola Tenuta di Rimale s.s. (Fidenza, Italy) and another nine applicants (represented by: M. Libertini, A. Scognamiglio and M. Spolidoro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul the contested Commission notice and order a re-examination of the reasons set out in the submitted complaint. That re-examination must be made on the basis of a different and more accurate interpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (1) and a more extensive investigation which will expose the unconvincing and inconsistent nature of the reasoning put forward by the Consorzio [del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano], in order to confirm sine die that the regulation of the supply of milk for the production of PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’ cheese is discriminatory and unjustified.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the notice of 6 February 2019 issued by the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, which decided to close the file on the complaint submitted by the applicants on 5 February 2018 by which they claimed that Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, del 15 dicembre 2016, n. 6762 (Decree No 6762 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of 15 December 2016), approving the plan for the regulation of the supply of ‘Parmigiano-Reggiano’ cheese for the three-year period from 2017 to 2019 inclusive, was unlawful, as was Decreto del Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali, del 19 settembre 2017, n. 5320 (Decree No 5320 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry of 19 September 2017), which approved amendments to the plan for the regulation of the supply of ‘Parmigiano-Reggiano’ cheese for the three-year period from 2017 to 2019 inclusive.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards establishing the qualified majority of producers concerned by the proposed regulation of supply.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the need to establish the substantive criteria for market imbalance for the purpose of adopting temporary supply regulation measures, and as regards the need for an adequate accompanying statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 150 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 as regards the prohibition of discriminatory plans for regulation of supply.

(1) OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.
—

Annul the contested decision of the appointing authority, the content of which is set out in the email of 20 September 2018 from the head of the Administration Department, and the implied decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant’s complaint. Consequently, EASO must take the measures necessary to implement the decision of the Court, in accordance with Article 266 TFEU, with retroactive effect;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Al-Tarazi v Council

(Case T-260/19)

(2019/C 213/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mazen Al-Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck and A. Khan, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;

— annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and Council implementing Decision 2019/87;

— declare that the applicant’s name be removed from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Decision 2019/87; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 defendant has provided insufficient or unsubstantiated reasons for the applicant’s designation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is based on a manifest error of assessment of the facts, in so far as the defendant would have failed to adduce evidence of the facts indicated which would underpin or would purportedly underpin the reasoning of the measures taken or in so far as the defendant would have drawn unreasonable inferences from these facts.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s right of defence.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s property rights, freedom to trade and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).

(2) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).
Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Infineon Technologies Dresden v Commission

(Case T-233/19)

(2019/C 213/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Infineon Technologies Dresden GmbH & Co. KG (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: L. Assmann and M. Peiffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is based on one plea in law, arguing that the contested decision is unlawful because the exemption from the network charges under the second sentence of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU.

In this regard, the applicant first argues that the exemption from network charges granted on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV was not granted through State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU but was financed through German electricity grid operators which are organised under private law and are not attributable to the State. Neither does the effect of the disputed surcharge equate to a levy on electricity consumption in Germany. In addition, the Federal Republic of Germany has no control over the transmission system operators which are entrusted with the management of these resources.

It is further claimed that the exemption from network charges on the basis of Paragraph 19(2) of the StromNEV differs in significant aspects from the underlying circumstances in Cases C-206/06, Essent Netwerk Noord and Others and C-262/12, Vent De Colère!. The disputed case is comparable, however, with the surcharge in Case C-405/16 P, Germany v Commission, and therefore not classifiable as aid.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to comply with the duty to consider all relevant aspects of the case at issue, in that the Council did not take into account the fact that the international agreement, entered into by means of the contested decision, applies on a provisional basis, for a period of 12 years, to the territory of Western Sahara, in breach of its separate and distinct status.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration.

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)

(Case T-353/19)

(2019/C 255/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piejūra SIA (Nīcas novads, Latvia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1819 558-0002 (Packing for foodstuffs)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 March 2019 in Case R 2543/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare the design valid;

— order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
—

accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay her all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of interpretation of the reasonableness of the period of time in which the occupational disease request has been lodged.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan)

(Case T-379/19)

(2019/C 270/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Serviceplan — Application No 15 234 669

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 in Case R 1424/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

First plea in law, alleging infringement, as interpreted by the European Investment Bank (EIB), of Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Regulations, in so far as the new interpretation of the rule laid down in those provisions is not consistent with the objective it is supposed to pursue.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 July 2019 — Sky v EUIPO — Safran Electronics & Defense (SKYNAUTE by SAGEM)

(Case T-523/19)

(2019/C 305/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Zalewska, lawyer, and A. Brackenbury, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safran Electronics & Defense (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SKYNAUTE by SAGEM — Application for registration No 14 821 334

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2019 in Case R 919/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the applicant’s application;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.

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 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
Action brought on 5 July 2019 — Vodafone Group and Others v Commission

(Case T-491/19)

(2019/C 312/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Vodafone Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom), Vodafone Consolidated Holdings Ltd (Newbury), Vodafone Finance UK Ltd (Newbury) and Vodafone Jersey Dollar Holdings Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: J. Gardiner, QC, I. Taylor, M. Lane and J. Holland, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul in whole or in part the Commission’s decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 in case SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with 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 has failed to state adequate reasons and has erred in law by finding that the controlled foreign companies (CFC) rules are the relevant reference system.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in fact and in law and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the group financing exemption (GFE) constitutes a derogation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifest error of assessment and has failed to state adequate reasons in finding that the GFE, in so far as it relates to UK significant people functions, is not justified and therefore is selective.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law and in fact and has failed to provide reasons in finding that the GFE constitutes an advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has erred in law in finding that some persons entitled to the GFE received an advantage compared to the situation without applying the GFE.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 July 2019 — Aldi v EUIPO (BBQ BARBECUE SEASON)

(Case T-522/19)

(2019/C 305/78)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and M. Minkner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark BBQ BARBECUE SEASON in black, grey, white, orange, light orange and dark orange — Application for registration No 17 879 203

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 May 2019 in Case R 1359/2018-5

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) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 July 2019 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)

(Case T-535/19)

(2019/C 312/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: H.R. Participations SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Rossi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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 JCE HOTTINGUER — EU trade mark No 10 093 391

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2019 in Case R 2078/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear all the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements, in so far as the application for a declaration of invalidity before the Cancellation Division was flawed.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and of fundamental rights on the ground that the inspection decision does not contain an adequate statement of reasons and, as a result, that decision deprived the applicants of fundamental guarantees required in that context.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a braided cheese)

(Case T-570/19)

(2019/C 328/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark in black and white (Shape of a braided cheese) — Application for registration No 17 909 082

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 106/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment with regard to the question whether the applicant’s legal situation had changed and a failure to analyse thoroughly why responsibility was attributed to the applicant for not appearing for a medical check.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 August 2019 – Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT BAR)

(Case T-553/19)

(2019/C 337/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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 PERFECT BAR – Application for registration No 15 374 085

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 in Case R 371/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— Infringement of Art 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

Action brought on 7 September 2019 – Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO – Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de)

(Case T-601/19)

(2019/C 363/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Osório & Gonçalves, SA (Galamares, Portugal) (represented by: D. Araújo e Sá Serras Pereira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedés, Spain)

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 in.fi.ni.tu.de – Application for registration No 15 982 994

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2019 in Case R 1579/2018-5

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

— Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 16 August 2019 — DS and Others v Commission and EEAS

(Case T-573/19)

(2019/C 357/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: DS and 718 other applicants (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decisions fixing the applicants’ number of days of paid annual leave for 2019;

— in any event, order the Commission and the EEAS to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants put forward a single plea in law, based on an objection of illegality directed against Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the same grounds as those adopted by the Court in the judgment of 4 December 2018, Carreras Sequeros and Others v Commission, (T-518/16, EU:T:2018:873). According to the applicants, the defendant institutions refused to apply that judgment even though its effects are not suspended, which is akin to an unlawful suspension of operation of a judgment of the Court.