ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 8 January 2019 — ClientEarth v EIB

(Case T-9/19)

(2019/C 72/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Flynn, QC and H. Leith, barrister)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the refusal of the EIB to conduct an internal review pursuant to Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation (1);

— order the defendant 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 errors in law in the application of the Aarhus Regulation, with regard to the status of ClientEarth as a non-governmental organisation, the concept of ‘administrative act’, the definition of measures of individual scope, the legal effects of the EIB Board of Directors’ decision, as well as the limits of ‘environmental law’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure of the defendant to provide adequate reasons as required by Article 296 TFEU.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council

(Case T-32/19)

(2019/C 103/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar as their provisions concern the Applicant; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that her name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017, (4) notwithstanding the fact that she is no longer Deputy Prosecutor General and is not related to the Venezuelan governing authorities.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 January 2019 — United States Seafoods v EUIPO (UNITED STATES SEAFOODS)

(Case T-10/19)

(2019/C 93/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United States Seafoods LLC (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

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 figurative sign UNITED STATES SEAFOODS — Application for registration No 1 365 398

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2018 in Case R 817/2018-5

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 12 February 2019 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC)

(Case T-80/19)

(2019/C 122/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dekoback GmbH (Helmstadt-Bargen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Moers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DecoPac, Inc. (Anoka, Minnesota, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Mark at issue: EU word mark DECOPAC — EU trade mark No 160 747

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 in Case R 1795/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare invalid, in its entirety, the trade mark DECOPAC registered for the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— No confidentiality of business data;

— Infringement of the right to be heard;

— No submission of invoices to any significant extent;

— No use of the trade mark as the other party’s own brand;

— Sale also to consumers was planned but did not take place;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 January 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO (BIANCOFINO)

(Case T-54/19)

(2019/C 112/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BIANCOFINO — Application for registration No 16 376 758

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 in Case R 2434/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order EUIPO to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, directed against all the contested decisions — the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully; — the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation; — the decision is factually unfounded; — the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle.
Action brought on 6 February 2019 — BMC v Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

(Case T-71/19)

(2019/C 122/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: BMC Srl (Medicina, Italy) (represented by: S. Dindo and L. Picotti, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the Clean Sky 2 Unit of 6 December 2018 confirming the decision of 10 October 2018 by which Clean Sky 2 found that proposal No 831874, concerning the call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 — relating to a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades — was not eligible for financing.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted its proposal for participation in call for proposals H2020-CS2-CFP08-2018-01 (Clean Sky 2 Call for proposals 08), managed by Clean Sky 2 (Programme Clean Sky 2), which has as its objective the development of a suction system for engines and systems for protection against the icing of rotor blades (integrating a removable anti-ice system).

The applicant claims to be the only business in the world, currently, to have found a solution to a flight safety problem for helicopters in icy conditions.

The applicant points out in this regard that, even though the call for proposals concerned specifically a request to put forward proposals for the development of the system for protection against icing, Clean Sky 2 (and therefore the unit entrusted with the management of the call) found that the applicant’s proposal did not meet the threshold set out by the call.

That decision, it is submitted, is vitiated by infringement of the procedural rules on the following grounds:

1. Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 entitled ‘Selection and award criteria’ (including where an intermediate score has been given in comparison with those laid down by the provision) and the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2. The existence in the present case of a misuse of powers in that an (intermediate) score was applied to each of the three criteria; the scale of scores for the evaluation of the proposals submitted made no provision for such a score.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kerry Luxembourg/EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry)

(Case T-108/19)

(2019/C 139/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TasteSense By Kerry — Application for registration No 15 820 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 in Case R 1179/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the opposition brought by Döhler GmbH against the registration of the mark TasteSense By Kerry No. 15 820 509;

— order EUIPO and Döhler, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Louis Vuitton Malletier/EUIPO — Wisniewski (Representation of a chequerboard pattern)

(Case T-105/19)

(2019/C 139/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, N. Parrotta and F. Rossi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norbert Wisniewski (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark representing a chequerboard pattern — International registration designating the European Union No 2 829 851

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 in Case R 274/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings;

— order Norbert Wisniewski to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council

(Case T-55/19)

(2019/C 139/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicants, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

— In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicants;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicants for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicants’ right to property and their right to respect for their reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicants consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to their reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which they are entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-118/19)

(2019/C 139/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 23 May 2018 not to select the applicant for the post of senior legal officer in respect of the vacancy ESMA/2017/VAC19/AD7.
—

annul the decisions of the President of the EIB of 30 June 2017 and 11 December 2017 in so far as they refuse to grant the applicant the geographical mobility allowance provided for in Article 1.4 of the Staff Rules;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)

(Case T-125/19)

(2019/C 148/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Clem & Jo Optique SARL (Cormicy, France) (represented by: N. Hausmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark C&J — Application for registration No 15 912 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 in Case R 1252/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council

(Case T-161/19)

(2019/C 172/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

— annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

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 that Article 50 of the contested regulation is invalid by reason of the inadequacy of Article 114 TFEU as a legal basis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation is in breach of the principle of subsidiarity and lacks motivation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation in in breach of the principle of proportionality and lacks motivation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed for the adoption of Article 50 of the contested regulation infringed the Better Regulation principles.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that Article 50 of the contested regulation limits the applicant’s fundamental right to property and freedom to conduct a business.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 April 2019 — Tradición CZ v EUIPO — Rivero Argudo (TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L.)

(Case T-250/19)

(2019/C 187/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Tradición CZ, SL (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: María Dolores Rivero Argudo (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark TRADICIÓN CZ, S.L. — Application for registration No 14 977 045

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 257/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Stay the present proceedings until a final decision is taken in the revocation proceedings against the opposing trade mark No 7272594 RIVERO CZ (proceedings 33785-C) before EUIPO.

— Declare the first plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

— In the alternative and cumulatively, declare the second plea well founded, annul the contested decision and find that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue in respect of the services in Class 35 relating to the sale of vinegars and musts.

— Order EUIPO and the other party, should she appear in the present proceedings, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on the ground that the amendment at issue discriminates on the basis of language, which constitutes a failure to observe the principle of linguistic diversity and discourages the French member of the European Parliament from using his mother tongue.
Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission

(Case T-242/19)

(2019/C 206/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 (1), in as far as it relates to the applicant; 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 made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the aluminium raw material purchases of the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant state interference and would have not substantially reflected market values pursuant to the first indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging the defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant’s group would have been subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system pursuant to the third indent of Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated the chapeau of Article 2(10) as well as Articles 2(10)(d)(i) and (ii) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 since it would have failed to carry out a fair comparison by not adjusting normal value for the differences in level of trade between export prices and normal value and by not providing the applicant with the information necessary for the applicant to quantify its adjustment claim.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 3(2), 3(3) and 3(6) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 by failing to compare, for the purpose of the undercutting and underselling calculations, the prices of imports with the price of the like product produced by the European Union industry at the same level of trade and at the point where the goods enter into competition with each other.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/73 of 17 January 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of electric bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 16, 18.1.2019, p. 108).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).