ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/74

Action brought on 13 October 2015 — Transavia Airlines v Commission

(Case T-591/15)

(2015/C 398/87)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Transavia Airlines (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Elkerbout and M. R. Baneke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(3) and (in so far as they concern Article 1(3)) Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (notified under document C(2014) 5085) (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration, set out in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the rights of the defence. — The applicant was not, before the contested decision was adopted, given the opportunity to put forward its views. — The Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant’s request of 25 August 2015 for access to certain documents on the file.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the alleged aid measures were wrongly attributed to the French State. — The Commission erred in classifying the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’ as a State body. — The Commission contradicts itself in its assessment of the character of the ‘chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Pau-Béarn’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the test of the operator in a market economy was applied incorrectly. — The Commission provided insufficient reasons as to why it applied the profitability test rather than making a comparison with the market price. — The Commission applied the profitability test incorrectly in disregarding the rationale of Pau Airport in accepting the agreement with the applicant, in adopting too short a time-frame and in not making it clear what revenue and benefits for Pau Airport it was taking into account.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission unduly found that the alleged economic advantage was selective.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the Commission failed to assess whether the alleged economic advantages also had actual adverse effects on competition.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/37

Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Batmore Capital v. OHIM — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)

(Case T-596/15)

(2015/C 414/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Batmore Capital Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Univers Poche (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘POCKETBOOK’ — Application for registration No 1 034 872

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2015 in Case R 1952/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— consider the present appeal admissible;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— register the Community part of the International trademark registration No 1 034 872;

— order OHIM to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Wrong appreciation of the similarity of the products and services;
—

annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company Oxea, based in Germany, as active substance supplier on the list provided by Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/50

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v OHIM — Lion Laboratories (ALCOLOCK)

(Case T-638/15)

(2016/C 016/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: E. Baud, P. Marchiset, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Laboratories Ltd (Barry, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALCOLOCK’ — Community trade mark No 8 443 301

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 August 2015 in Case R 1323/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare valid the CTM Trademark owned and registered in the name of Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International), Inc.;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 8(2) and 15(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 10(2) of Directive No 2008/95 and Article 19(2) of TRIPS, lack of motivation and misrepresentation of the facts;

— Infringement of Articles 57(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and insufficient motivation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/33

Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Deere v OHIM (EXHAUST-GARD)

(Case T-622/15)

(2016/C 007/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deere & Company (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: N. Weber and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘EXHAUST-GARD’ — Application for registration No 11 747 409

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2015 in Case R 196/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial protection. This plea is expressed in two parts: — first part, alleging a failure on the part of the Council to notify the applicants individually of the decision to freeze funds; — second part, alleging a failure to disclose the evidence and the file, and infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of transparency.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/60

Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-588/15)

(2016/C 027/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the contested decisions to be void; and

— order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decisions of the Commission, contained in the e-mail of 29 July 2015 and in the letters of 19 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3466903) and of 28 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3557576), to suspend all payments to the applicant related to FP7 grants managed by the defendant’s Directorate E, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No 602299 regarding Project EU-CERT-ICD and FP7 Grant Agreement No. 260777 regarding project HIP-Trial and Directorate F, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No. 312117 regarding project BIOFECTOR.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are not covered by Article II.5(3)(d) of Annex II to the FP7 Grant Agreement.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s true intention is to enforce an illegitimate set-off rather than impose precautionary measures.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on illegitimate discretionary decisions of the defendant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/80

Action brought on 09 October 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann e.a. v ECHA

(Case T-669/15)

(2016/C 048/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim, Germany), Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany), Diversey Europe Operations BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

— annul the decision of the European Chemicals Agency concerning the inclusion of the company BASF on the list of active substances and suppliers provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (1); and

— order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants submit that, by allowing a company to be included on the list provided by Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 in respect of a given substance, ECHA has failed to apply the law. Its failures in that regard are founded on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that ECHA has misapplied the rules regarding the requirement that the company submit a complete dossier under Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that ECHA has treated companies, which were in the same situation, differently.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that contrary to the requirements of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012, ECHA has failed to ensure that there is a level playing field between those companies that have participated in the review programme of the given substance and those that have been free-riders.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ L 167, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/67

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)

(Case T-681/15)

(2016/C 038/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Elmar Wolf SA (Wissembourg, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a wolf’s head) — Community trade mark application No 4 971 511

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1252/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/71

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — García Rey v Parliament

(Case T-658/15)

(2016/C 048/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcos García Rey (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8661 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/54

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Kristan v Parliament

(Case T-640/15)

(2016/C 048/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tina Kristan (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8656 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all of the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/38

Action brought on 04 December 2015 — Commission v CINAR

(Case T-720/15)

(2016/C 059/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, A. Duron, lawyer, S. Delaude, agent, L. Di Paolo, agent, and J. Estrada de Solà, agent)

Defendant: CINAR Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— condemn the defendant to reimburse GBP 25 616 to the applicant;

— condemn the defendant to pay interest on the principal amount of GBP 25 616 at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations on 1 December 2005 (2,09 %) plus one and a half percentage points, covering the period running from 6 December 2005 until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed; and

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations regarding the justification of costs claimed. As the financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment, the applicant contends that, under the contract, the defendant is liable for the sum due.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/61

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

(Case T-647/15)

(2016/C 048/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8554 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
2.

Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 45 and the lack of a comparative assessment of the merits, which is divided in two parts: — the first part, alleging, first, an error in law by the CST in the context of the analysis of the documents submitted and the distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted by the parties, the lack of effective judicial review by the CST and failure to state reasons, and, secondly, an error of assessment, failure to state reasons, lack of effective judicial review by the CST and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence. — The second part alleging, first, an error in law in assessing the pleas set out by the appellant in that the CST held that the appellant had not raised a plea of illegality of the general implementing provisions C(2011) 8190 of Article 45 of the Statute, adopted by the European Commission on 14 November 2011, in that no comparative assessment is provided for at the stage of joint committee on promotions, and, second, an error of assessment and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 296(2) TFEU and its duty to state reasons through its failure to explain how it derives the arm’s length principle from Union law, or even what the principle is and through its superficial description of the APA’s effect on competition.
—

annul the European Food Safety Authority (‘EFSA’) Decision of 10 December 2015 concerning the publication of certain parts of the EFSA Conclusion on the Peer Review on the review of the approval of the active substance diflubenzuron regarding the metabolite PCA in respect of which the applicant claimed confidentiality pursuant to 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);