ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/50

Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Anudal Industrial v Commission

(Case T-3/14)

2014/C 52/96

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Anudal Industrial, SL (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

— in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

— order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-515/13 Spain v Commission.

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

1. The contested decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Articles 20, 21 and 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in that it was adopted following an investigation procedure in which there were substantial irregularities.

2. Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they were selective.

3. Error of law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission found that the measures covered by the present proceedings constitute State aid, without establishing that they affect Community trade.

4. Error of law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and failure to state reasons, inasmuch as the Commission found that there was State aid and categorised the Economic Interest Groupings and their investors as beneficiaries, in circumstances in which the aid neither confers competitive advantages on those parties nor affects trade between Member States in their respective sectors.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/27

Action brought on 27 January 2014 — BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)

(Case T-60/14)

2014/C 93/48

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2013 in Case R 382/2013-4;

— order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings;

— in the alternative, if the intervener does not declare its participation in the proceedings, order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Delek Europe BV

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 36 (Community trade mark application No 9 995 201)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘GO’, for goods and services in Classes 4, 19, 35, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 November 2013 in Case R 1254/2013-4 in respect of the goods in Class 6 (building material made of metal, ironmongery, small items of metal hardware, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods made of metal); the goods in Class 19 (building material, fastening material, assembly material, screws, parts and accessories for all of the abovementioned goods, all of the abovementioned goods not made of metal) and the goods in Class 20 (fastening material, assembly material, screws);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/54

Action brought on 12 February 2014 — TrekStor v OHIM — Scanlab (iDrive)

(Case T-105/14)

2014/C 112/70

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, Hong Kong) (represented by: M. Alber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scanlab AG (Puchheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 2330/2012-1 to the effect that the mark ‘iDrive’ is allowed to proceed to registration in its entirety and that the opposing party’s opposition is rejected;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘iDrive’ for goods in Class 9 (Community trade mark application No 10 267 573)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Scanlab AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘IDRIVE’ for goods and services in Classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Article [42](5) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging error in law as to the requirements for the liability of the European Union to be incurred when implementing Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the CST required that the incident incompatible with the order and tranquillity of the service have an impact on the operation of the service and the health of the protagonists, though that requirement is not provided for either by the Staff Regulations or by case-law. The appellant further argues that the CST distorted the facts in holding, first, that the Court of Auditors took all necessary measures to restore the proper functioning of the service and, secondly, that the disruption to the service had no impact on the health of the protagonists, though the Court of Auditors did not act sufficiently quickly and decisively to end the situation of conflict which caused the appellant’s permanent total disability (paragraphs 67 and 68 of the judgment under appeal).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/31

Action brought on 13 February 2014 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR)

(Case T-97/14)

2014/C 129/38

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/57

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Vicentin v Council

(Case T-114/14)

2014/C 112/74

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vicentin SAIC (Avellaneda, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and infringement of the right to be treated fairly and of the general principle that agreements and contractual terms and conditions must be performed in good faith, in so far as the reasoning provided by the Commission is incorrect and or none of the terms and conditions for terminating the contract are met. The applicants claim that the fact that the objectives which the project was to meet were met by other means, thereby depriving the project of its objective, is not a valid reason to terminate the subsidy contract.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging exceeding and misuse of powers and infringement of the right to sound administration, of the principle of an adversarial process and of the general principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti, the Commission not providing information to make it possible, first, to know whether it examined the observations made by the consortium of which the applicants were a part and, second, to know the grounds on which it had rejected those observations. The applicants also complain that the Commission did not give them the opportunity to carry out, themselves, the obligations arising from the contract in order to remedy any possible shortcomings of the company EDC.
—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the refusal of the application for the services in classes 35 and 39;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/52

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — Vimeo v OHIM — PT Comunicações (VIMEO)

(Case T-96/14)

2014/C 135/67

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Vimeo LLC (New York, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter and M. Macdonald, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PT Comunicações, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 November 2013 given in Case R 1092/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIMEO’ for services in Classes 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 843 061

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘meo’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/21

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Elaris (Gala Schnitzer)

(Case T-92/14)

2014/C 151/28

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elaris SNC (Angers, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 003/2007;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/31

Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Anastasiou v Commission and ECB

(Case T-149/14)

2014/C 159/41

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Harry Anastasiou (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/20

Action brought on 10 February 2014 — Schniga v CPVO — Brookfield New Zealand (Gala Schnitzer)

(Case T-91/14)

2014/C 151/27

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Schniga GmbH (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office in Case A 004/2007;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community plant variety right: The applicant

Community plant variety right concerned: Gala Schnitzer — Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 18759

Decision of the Committee of the CPVO: Upheld the Community plant variety right

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Found the appeal well founded and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 61 (1) (b), 55 (4), 59 (3) and 62 of the Council Regulation No. 2100/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/32

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — Calberson GE v Commission

(Case T-164/14)

2014/C 184/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Calberson GE (Villeneuve-la-Garenne, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Commission to pay it the following amounts: — financial costs generated by the late release of supply securities: EUR 7 691,60 including tax; — default interest to run from the due date of the transport invoices to the time of their effective payment: EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17; — ‘default interest on default interest’: 2% per month of late payment of the aforementioned default interest (EUR 81 817,25 excluding tax and USD 6 344,17); — balance of one transport invoice: EUR 17 400 including tax; — differential of one rate of exchange: EUR 30 580,41 including tax;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was, pursuant to Regulations Nos 111/1999 (1) and 1799/1999, (2) awarded a contract relating to the transport of beef to the Russian Federation under the programme to supply agricultural products to that country.

Following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 January 2013 in Case C-623/11 Geodis Calberson GE (not yet published in the ECR), which conferred upon the European Union courts jurisdiction to rule on actions for compensation for damage suffered as a result of misconduct by the national intervention agency, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage it suffered in the performance of that contract.

The applicant thus argues that the national intervention agency committed acts of misconduct — namely (i) the late release of securities for performance of the contract supplied by the applicant (ii) the late payment of uncontested invoices, (iii) the non-payment of certain uncontested invoices and (iv) the settlement of certain invoices in a currency other than that stipulated in the contract — causing the applicant to suffer damage.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 of 16 August 1999 on the supply of beef to Russia (OJ 1999 L 217, p. 20).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/47

Action brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission and REA

(Case T-165/14)

2014/C 175/65

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission and Research Executive Agency (REA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare that the suspension of payment which was imposed and is maintained by the REA acting under powers delegated to it by the Commission in respect of the amount which the Commission remains liable to pay to the applicant as its portion in respect of the ESS project is a breach of the latter’s contractual obligations;

— Declare that the amount of EUR 125 253,82 which the Commission continues not to have paid as its portion in respect of the ESS project constitutes eligible costs and, consequently, the Commission is under an obligation to pay it to ΑΝΚΟ;

— Declare that the entire amount of EUR 216 172,68 which the Commission has already paid to the applicant as its portion in respect of the ESS project constitutes eligible costs,·and

— Order the REA and the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the REA and the Commission under the contract No 217 951 for the performance of the ESS project, under Article 272 TFEU.

In particular, the applicant maintains that the REA, acting under powers delegated to it by the Commission, without any justification and in the breach of the ESS project agreement, suspended payment to ΑΝΚΟ. Further, the applicant maintains that the Commission, by seeking to apply the ‘extrapolation’ method, disputed, without any legal basis and in breach of both the agreement and of applicable law, the eligibility of almost the whole of the costs declared by ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the ESS project.