ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Célestin Kanyama;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/47

Action brought on 22 February 2017 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo (DEVIN)

(Case T-122/17)

(2017/C 121/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Devin AD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEVIN’ — EU trade mark No 9 408 865

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 579/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Cancellation Division’s decision dated 29 January 2016 in the case No 9 559;

— entirely or at least partially reject the Cancellation Applicant’s application for invalidity of the EU trade mark ‘DEVIN’ No 9408865 for all the designated goods in class 32;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/55

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — RY v Commission

(Case T-160/17)

(2017/C 144/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: RY (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule:

— The decision of 27 April 2016 of the Director General of the Human Resources and Security Directorate General (DG HR) terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff concluded for an indefinite period under Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS is annulled;

— The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of the applicant to be heard before the adoption of the decision terminating the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period. According to the applicant, the contested decision was adopted in breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. In addition, it was adopted in breach of the obligation to state reasons and, more exactly, of the right of the applicant to be informed of all the objective complaints which underlie the contested decision and, in particular, the reasons for an alleged breakdown in the relationship of trust.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/27

Action brought on 27 February 2017 — Torné v Commission

(Case T-128/17)

(2017/C 129/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Torné (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that:

— The decision of 16 April 2016 to reject her application to have her pension accrual rate and her retirement date fixed is annulled;

— The European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action, the applicant contests the decision impliedly rejecting her application for an advance ruling concerning certain fixed and invariable factors in the calculation of her pension rights. She is of the opinion that the implied rejection of her application constitutes a failure to take a measure required by the Staff Regulations and, accordingly, is a measure adversely affecting her for the purpose of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

With regard to the factors for calculation of her pension, the applicant also contests the Commission’s practice of taking the view that the transfer of a member of the temporary staff covered by Article 2(f) of the CEOS to another EU agency entails the conclusion of a new contract, separate from the previous contract, which shows a discontinuity in the career of that member of the temporary staff and therefore entails the application of the new rules under the Staff Regulations concerning retirement pensions.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors during the adoption of the regulation at issue, in the context of the exercise of the power delegated to it by the European Parliament and the Council by Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Specifically in question are the following: — infringement of the rules, both primary and secondary, of EU environmental law; — infringement of subsidiary rules of EU law, such as the general principles of standstill, precaution, prevention, rectification at source and polluter-pays; — circumvention of procedural rules, in that the Commission was not entitled to use the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in order to amend an essential aspect of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007; — infringement of essential procedural requirements, in that the regulation at issue did not benefit from the democratic guarantees offered by recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure of joint decision-making by the European Parliament and the Council.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/49

Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

(Case T-134/17)

(2017/C 144/68)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision C(2017) 736 final of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 in Case GESTDEM 2016/6034 to 2016/6044;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been brought against the decision confirming a decision refusing access to the documents sought by Hércules CF, in relation to certain documents in the administrative file that led to the adoption of Decision C(2016) 4060 final of 4 July 2016 on the State Aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in concluding that access to the requested documents could be refused on the basis of the third and first indents of Article 4(2) of 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. 4). — The applicant argues, in that respect, that the Commission automatically applied the general presumption of confidentiality of the administrative file in State aid proceedings established by the case-law; and that the Commission incorrectly applied, by analogy, the case-law concerning merger cases, in relation to the effects on the commercial interests of third parties.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly applied Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. — The applicant argues in this respect that the case-law relating to merger cases is also inapplicable by analogy here. While, in those cases, it is understandable that the information continues to be sensitive after the Commission’s decision, that is not the case as regards a single loan, the conditions of which the Commission considers to be incompatible with the TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging that, even if the confidentiality grounds raised by the Commission were well-founded in this case, there is an overriding public interest which justifies granting access to the documents requested, namely ensuring that the applicant is adequately able to exercise the rights of defence laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the scope of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the defendant was of the view that that provision applied to officials who, although having reached the retirement age (that is to say that they may apply for retirement without a reduction to their pension rights), have not yet reached the age at which the appointing authority is required to retire them (ex officio).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/37

Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Representation of a hip ball)

(Case T-194/17)

(2017/C 161/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative colour mark in pink (Representation of a hip ball) — EU trade mark No 10 214 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 928/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, or, if C5 Medical Werks joins, by the intervener.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/32

Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)

(Case T-230/17)

(2017/C 178/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and G. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘RSTUDIO’ –International registration designating the European Union No 999 644

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 493/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below; in the alternative, if the potential intervener actually intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener to be jointly and severally liable for the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the goods for which proof of use had been established and, accordingly, failed to conduct the correct comparison of goods;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/23

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (Bio proof ADAPTA)

(Case T-225/17)

(2017/C 202/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Bio proof ADAPTA’ — European Union trade mark No 4 582 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 311/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action in its entirety;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-223/17.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/43

Action brought on 24 April 2017 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)

(Case T-250/17)

(2017/C 195/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: avanti GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘avanti’ — registration No 14 646 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 801/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow registration of the mark applied for on 6 October 2015 at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) under No 01464038 and publish the mark in order to progress the application procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/34

Action brought on 3 May 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN PULSE)

(Case T-260/17)

(2017/C 221/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN PULSE’ — Application for registration No 13 374 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1571/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law
—

The applicant bases his application inter alia on the fact that the Council of the European Union did not proceed with proper care when adopting Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017, since it did not, before adopting the contested decision, address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence presented by him which supported his case, and proceeded essentially on the basis of a brief summary by the Ukraine Chief Public Prosecutor’s office without requiring any additional information on the progress of the investigation in Ukraine.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/43

Action brought on 16 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (1000)

(Case T-299/17)

(2017/C 231/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘1000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 531

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 650/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/29

Action brought on 26 April 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

(Case T-244/17)

(2017/C 231/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: António Conde & Companhia, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the European Commission has failed to act in application of Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2007 of 22 October 2007 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (OJ 2007 L 318, p. 1) by requesting Portugal to submit to it a list of Portuguese-flagged vessels authorised to fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area for the season 2017 which excludes the fishing vessel CALVÃO, with the consequence that it has failed to forward a list including that vessel to the NAFO Secretariat;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1386/2007 by unlawfully failing to forward a list of vessels including the applicant’s fishing vessel CALVÃO for the purposes of authorisation to fish in the NAFO Regulatory Area for the season 2017.

The applicant maintains that the Commission lacks powers to participate in the drafting of the lists of authorised vessels which remains an exclusive competence of the Member States. The applicant has requested the Commission to desist from interfering in the drafting of the list concerned and has called upon it to fulfil its obligations regarding the forwarding of the list including its fishing vessel CALVÃO to the NAFO Secretariat.
1.

First plea in law, raised in the context of the first head of claim, alleging infringement of Article 108 TFEU, of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘Regulation No 2015/1589’) (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9), and infringement of the principle of res judicata inherent to judgments rendered following a response to a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/47

Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)

(Case T-304/17)

(2017/C 231/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘5000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 555

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 655/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

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

in the event that the Court upholds the Fifth plea, — annul Article 1(1) in its entirety, or if Article 1(1) is not annulled in its entirety, annul Article 1(1): (i) insofar as it relates to Security Surcharge and commissioning; (ii) insofar as it relates to the period 22 January 2001 to end of 2002; and (iii) insofar as it makes any finding of involvement in cartel conduct as that term is normally understood prior to 10 June 2005 at the earliest; — annul Article 1(2) in its entirety, or if Article 1(2) is not annulled in its entirety, annul Article 1(2): (i) insofar as it relates to Security surcharge and commissioning; (ii) insofar as it makes any finding of involvement in cartel conduct as that term is normally understood prior to 10 June 2005 at the earliest; — annul Articles 1(3) and 1(4) in their entirety.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and/or breached an essential procedural requirement by failing to state adequate reasons in respect of the imposition of the fine against the applicant. According to the applicant, the imposition of the fine was based on findings of infringement not contained in the measure in question, and which were inconsistent with the findings that were contained in the measure in question. The applicant further or alternatively puts forward that the Commission’s approach in this regard was beyond its competence.
7.

Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred when considering the Agency’s CCR decision in compliance with the procedural rules. The applicants put forward that they established in their appeals that the Agency’s CCR decision is partially flawed for the following reasons: (i) the Agency exceeded its competence by declaring that the non-binding ACER Opinion 09/2015, issued in September 2015, has binding effect, and, as this Opinion did not form part of the consultation procedure, the applicants’ procedural rights were fundamentally violated by ACER; (ii) the Agency’s file for the preparation of the CCR decision lacked technical studies, analysis and in-depth assessments: either the Agency provided the applicants with significantly incomplete information and, by doing so, violated the applicants’ right to full access to the case file according to Article 41 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the Agency did not at all prepare and/or consult technical expertise and analyses in order to put its CCR-decision on a factually sound basis; (iii) the Agency did not take into account the mandatory requirements for a bidding zone modification as set out in Article 33 of the CACM Regulation; (iv) the CCR decision is based on facts that have not been sufficiently clarified and the Agency failed to make observations. According to the applicants, despite these significant violations of statutory procedural rules by ACER, the Board of Appeal, again in a very general way, confirmed the legitimacy of the CCR decision and therefore acted unlawfully.
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 13 March 2017 on the applicant’s complaint and order the defendant to adopt a decision on the calculation of the capital value at the time of the registration of the applicant’s claim on 14 September 2011;