ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/25

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki/Commission

(Case T-74/15)

(2015/C 171/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission (ESTAT/G0/MHF/Gl/MH/nf D (2014) of 8 December 2014), notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-O1-CINF-03 of 9 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for services No DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 within the context of framework contract ESP DESIS III Lot no 4,

— annul the decision of the Commission, notified to the applicants as an attachment to Customer Additional Information Form DESIS 111-000485-6000494078- REQ-01-CINF-02 of 12 December 2014, which rejected their offer in relation to the Request for Services No DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-0l, within the context of framework contract ESP-DESIS III Lot no 4,

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ damages suffered for the loss of opportunity in the case of DESIS ill-000485-6000494078-REQ-OI-CINF-02, for an amount of 12 000,00 euros, plus interest,

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Firstly, the applicants argue that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reason within the evaluation of their offers in DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01 and DESIS III-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.

Secondly, the applicants argue that the Commission committed several manifest errors of assessment within the evaluation of their offer in DESIS 111-000485-6000494078-REQ-01.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/30

Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-124/15)

(2015/C 171/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a unicorn) – Community trade mark No 11 014 743

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 149/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;
—

The applicants contend that they could not have anticipated, on the basis of the decision imposing the fine and of the delegated Regulation, the imposition of default interest in the present situation. They furthermore state, that they could have legitimately expected that the Commission would not have applied default interest to the present situation.
1.

First plea in law, alleging incorrect exercise of the European Commission’s power to exclude amounts from European Union financing — By applying the flat rate corrections set out in Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/103, the Commission infringed Article 52 of Regulation (EU) 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 and the Commission Guidelines for applying financial corrections set out in Commission Document No VI/5330/97 of 23 December 1997 entitled ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearing of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section’. — The Commission was required to establish the corrections by identifying amounts unduly spent by Romania, and not to apply flat rate corrections bearing in mind that the nature of the situation did not require this and that the Romanian State had made the necessary information available to the Commission to calculate the corrections. In those circumstances it cannot be considered that a disproportionate effort was required on the part of the Commission, in order to calculate the corrections based on actual loss of funds.
—

Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of the baseless assumption that Gmina Kosakowo (Municipality of Kosakowo), contrary to that provision, granted public aid, even though the receipt by that municipality of shares in the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. (Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport company with limited liability) represented the settlement of a transaction carried out in the context of a land-tenancy contract, by reason of the improper application by the European Commission of the private-investor test, and by reason of the baseless assumption that the granting of public aid to the company Port Lotniczy Gdynia-Kosakowo sp. z o.o. distorted, or threatened to distort, competition and adversely affected trade between Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/44

Action brought on 22 April 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

(Case T-201/15)

(2015/C 198/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘UNICORN’ — Community trade mark No 5 992 805

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 1699/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;

— OHIM did not take into consideration evidence in Czech;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014, as amended (the ‘Decision’), insofar as it imposes restrictive measures against the applicant, is inconsistent with the Decision’s expressly invoked objectives (e.g. democracy; rule of law; respect for human rights), and does not fall within the principles and objectives of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’) set out in article 21 TEU. The conditions for relying on Article 29 TEU are therefore not satisfied by the Decision. As the Decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on article 215(2) TFEU to enact the Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, as amended (the ‘Regulation’). Recent events have made clear that the applicant will not get fair, independent or unbiased treatment by Ukrainian investigating or judicial authorities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/38

Action brought on 30 March 2015 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-147/15)

(2015/C 213/63)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller, J. Očková and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision BUDG/B/3/RDL D(15)217973 of 20 January 2015 refusing the application for release from the obligation to provide own resources in the sum of CZK 5 3 9 76 340,00 in accordance with Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 breach of Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000 — The applicant submits in this connection that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 17(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 1150/2000, in that it incorrectly came to the conclusion that the Czech Republic had not taken all the necessary measures for providing an amount of EU own resources to the Commission, and in that it requires provision of an amount which could not be excluded on grounds which were not attributable to the Czech Republic.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic — The applicant submits on this point that by adopting the contested decision the Commission infringed Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the rights of defence of the Czech Republic, in that it did not enable the Czech Republic to express its point of view purposefully and effectively.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/37

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Telefónica v Commission

(Case T-256/15)

(2015/C 245/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Telefónica, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision;

— annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision insofar as it orders the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the aid scheme referred to in Article 1;

— annul Article 4(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the contested decision, insofar as it orders the recovery of the State aid established by the Commission;

— in the alternative, limit the recovery obligation laid down by Article 4(2) of the contested decision under the same conditions as those established in the First and Second Decisions, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and others v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.

It is claimed in particular that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in examining the interpretation of the Spanish tax administration (DGT) and concluding that it amounts to a new measure likely to constitute new state aid, and in claiming that the first two decisions did not cover the possible application of the measure at issue to the acquisition of indirect shareholdings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/44

Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Cryo-Save v OHIM — MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack (Cryo-Save)

(Case T-239/15)

(2015/C 236/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cryo-Save AG (Freienbach, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MedSkin Solutions Dr. Suwelack AG (Billerbeck, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Cryo-Save’ — Community trade mark No 4 625 216

Procedure before OHIM: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 2567/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 October 2013 is annulled and the application for revocation of Community trade mark No 4 625 216 is rejected; in the alternative: annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 56(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 254/16

Action brought on 22 May 2015 — Iberdrola v Commission

(Case T-260/15)

(2015/C 254/19)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Biblao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

— annul Article 1;

— annul Article 4(1) of the contested decision insofar as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the aid scheme referred to in Article 1;

— annul Article 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the contested decision, insofar as it orders the recovery of the State aid established by the Commission;

— in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain by Article 4(2) of the contested decision under the same terms as those established in the First and Second Decisions, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in these proceedings is the same as that in Cases T-12/15, Banco de Santander and Santusa v Commission and T-252/15 Ferrovial SA and Others v Commission.

The pleas and main arguments relied on are similar to those already raised in those cases.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/43

Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-289/15)

(2015/C 245/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 in so far as it concerns Hamas (including Hamas-Izz-al-Din-al-Quassem);

— 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 seven pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position No 2001/93 (1) in so far as the national decisions relied on by the Council do not satisfy the conditions laid down by that article for a decision to be considered as taken by a competent authority.

2. Second plea in law: incorrect statement of the facts, since the main facts cited by the Council are not substantiated by any evidence.

3. Third plea in law: mistaken characterisation of Hamas as a terrorist group.

4. Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of non-interference which prevents Hamas, a lawful political movement that won the Palestinian elections and forms the core of the Palestinian government, from being characterised as a terrorist group.

5. Fifth plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons by the Council.

6. Sixth plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s right of defence and its right to effective judicial protection in the course of the national proceedings.

7. Seventh plea in law: infringement of the right to property in so far as the freezing of the applicant’s funds unjustifiably infringes its right to property.

(1) Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/28

Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement

(Case T-181/15)

(2015/C 262/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of unknown date to launch the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8;

— annul any decision that the European Parliament may have taken with regard to the further course of this negotiated procedure without publication notice NPE-15.8;

— declare that the contract(s) that are possibly closed based on the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8, is (are) null and void;

— order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 104.2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application, thus invalidating the Decision of unknown date, to launch the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice.

According to the applicants, the European Parliament wrongfully and illegally used the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, whereby it should have been stated that this procedure was an exceptional procedure of which the use had to be legally justified (also given the obligation of the European Parliament to ensure that all public procurement contracts are be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis, cfr. article 102.2 of the Financial Regulation). Such justification, so the applicants claim, was not given by the European Parliament, nor were there any reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events not attributable to the European Parliament present (as required for the application of article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 262/33

Action brought on 31 May 2015 — Smarter Travel Media/OHIM (SMARTER TRAVEL)

(Case T-290/15)

(2015/C 262/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Smarter Travel Media LLC (Boston, United States of America) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SMARTER TRAVEL’ — Application for registration No 12 460 044

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20/03/2015 in Case R 1986/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in finding that the mark was not distinctive;

— The Board of Appeal erred in misapplying the Bild decision;

— The Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account that the trademark contained an independently registrable element;

— The Board of Appeal erred in not taking into account that the same trademark with a different logo had been registered for essentially the same services and that the new application is merely a modernization;
3.

Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement of the obligation to reply to a plea put forward in the application, failure to give reasons and an error of law in the interpretation of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and of the statutes of the institutions. The appellant contends that her particular situation — she performed, with the agreement of the Commission, the duties of head of unit for two units shown on the Commission organisation chart — justifies her being admitted to the internal competition in question.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that in establishing whether the Concentration gives rise to a significant impediment to effective competition (‘SIEC’), the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements by failing to state reasons, including its duty of care, and engaged in a manifest error in the application of EU merger control rules in relation to: — the omission to conduct an analysis of the vertical effects of the Concentration; — the insufficiency of the reasoning in support of the conclusion that it can be left open whether the Concentration gives rise to an SIEC on the wholesale market for access and call origination in Germany; and — the insufficiency of the reasoning as regards conclusions drawn regarding horizontal coordinated effects in the wholesale market for access and call origination and in the retail mobile telecommunications market in Germany.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/81

Action brought on 3 July 2015 — Arrom Conseil v OHIM — Nina Ricci (Roméo has a Gun by Romano Ricci)

(Case T-359/15)

(2015/C 294/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Arrom Conseil (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp and J. Blanchard, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nina Ricci SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Roméo has a gun by Romano Ricci’ — Community trade mark application No 11 193 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 April 2015 in Case R 1021/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
1.

First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle and an error of law. The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) (i) wrongly rejected as inadmissible, in the light of the rule of correspondence, the pleas in law based on a manifest error of assessment and the principle of sound administration, even though the Commission had never raised an objection of inadmissibility and the parties had never had the opportunity to take a position on that alleged inadmissibility, and (ii) in any event, erred in law in finding that the appellant had not complied with the rule of correspondence.