ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 9 July 2019 — BASF v Commission

(Case T-472/19)

(2019/C 305/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Wright, Barrister-at-law, A. Rusanov and H. Boland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, in its entirety, or insofar as it affects the applicant, Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4336 final of 6 June 2019 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘Omega-3 acid ethyl esters’ for oral use in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction;

— 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 that the contested decision has no valid legal basis. — The applicant argues that, by adopting the contested decision, the European Commission failed to respect and fulfil the obligations imposed on the institution by Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC; (1) — More specifically, the applicant states that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the medicinal product Omacor is harmful, lacks therapeutic efficacy, that the risk-benefit balance is not favourable, or that its qualitative and quantitative composition is not as declared; — The contested decision, it is further argued, disregards the principle established by the case-law of the Court of Justice that the favourable risk-benefit balance and efficacy of Omacor are presumed and that it is for the European Commission to demonstrate that the available clinical data supports the reversal of this presumption.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the defendant disregarded the general principle of proportionality under EU law. — It is argued again, under this plea, that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Omacor lacks therapeutic efficacy or that the risk-benefit balance of Omacor is no longer favourable. Moreover, the applicant maintains that the contested decision manifestly fails to respect the principle of proportionality; — Even if, quod non, there had been substantiated concerns regarding the efficacy or risk-benefit balance of Omacor, the defendant would have been required to consider measures that could address these concerns and which are less restrictive than the contested decision.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-554/19)

(2019/C 319/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the competition notice; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/374/19 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Competition law; 2. Financial law; 3. Economic and Monetary Union Law; 4. Financial rules applicable to the EU budget; 5. Protection of euro coins against counterfeiting. (1)

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

1. Infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the restriction of communication between EPSO and the candidate solely to English, French, German or Italian, and of the restriction of the languages that may be used when filling in the talent screener section of the application form.

2. Infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the improper restriction of the selection of the second language to four languages only (French, English, German and Italian), excluding the other official languages of the European Union.

3. The selection of English, French, German and Italian constitutes an arbitrary selection giving rise to discrimination on the ground of language, contrary to Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

4. The fact that the competition notice fails expressly to specify that language 1 must be the language in which candidates have a minimum C1 level gives rise to double discrimination, on the ground of nationality and on the ground of the language ‘spoken’, thereby infringing Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.

(1) OJ 2019 C 191 A, p. 1.

(2) Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 July 2019 — Puma v EUIPO — Gemma Group (Device of a jumping animal)

(Case T-510/19)

(2019/C 328/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gemma Group Srl (Cerasolo Ausa, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing device of a jumping animal — Application for registration No 11 573 474

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2019 in Case R 2057/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and GEMMA GROUP S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has committed an error of fact as Mr. Borborudi does not work for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran anymore (the ‘AEOI’), as the AEOI is not a UN sanctioned entity anymore and that the AMAD plan was halted in 2003.
—

annul Decision C(2019)4027 final of 23 May 2019 in part, as follows: a. with regard to the sums entered in Row 1 of Columns 2 and 3 of the table concerning the balance in the text of Decision C(2019)4027 final, with the Commission being obliged to recalculate those sums, taking into consideration the co-financing rate from the Funds of 85 % for Priority Axes 1 and 2 of Programul Operațional 2014RO16M1OP001 Infrastructură Mare (Large Infrastructure Operational Programme 2014RO16M1OP001) (‘the POIM’); b. with regard to the calculation of the sums chargeable, in euros, to the Funds for Priority Axes 1 and 2 of the POIM in the Annex to Decision C(2019)4027 final, in particular: — the section regarding the Cohesion Fund, Point 1 — Financial plan — Table 18a — Row AP1 — Column C — Co-financing rate — 75 %, to be replaced with 85 % pursuant to Decision C(2018)8890 final, with the Commission being obliged to recalculate, taking into consideration the co-financing rate of 85 %, the sums entered in: — Point 3 — Appendix 1 — Row AP1, Column F — Amount chargeable to the Funds, and Column F7 — Amount chargeable to the Funds plus amount already paid limited to the contribution of the Fund; — Point 4 — Calculation of the annual balance — Row AP1, Column CA and Column R — Revised amount chargeable to the Funds; — Point 5 — Annual balance — Column T — Revised amount chargeable to the Funds; — Point 5 — Annual balance — Column V — Row ‘To be recovered’; — the section regarding the European Regional Development Fund, Point 1 — Financial Plan — Table 18a — Row AP2 — Column C — Co-financing rate — 75 %, to be replaced with 85 % pursuant to Decision C(2018)8890 final, with the Commission being obliged to recalculate, taking into consideration the co-financing rate of 85 %, the sums entered in: — Point 3 — Appendix 1 — Row AP2, Column F — Amount chargeable to the Funds, and Column F7 — Amount chargeable to the Funds + amount already paid limited to the contribution of the Fund; — Point 4 — Calculation of the annual balance — Row AP2, Column CA and Column R — Amount chargeable to the Funds; — Point 5 — Annual balance — Column T — Revised amount chargeable to the Funds; — Point 5 — Annual balance — Column V — Row ‘To be recovered’;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 August 2019 – Axactor v EUIPO – Axa (AXACTOR)

(Case T-594/19)

(2019/C 363/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Axactor SE (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Stone, A. Dykes, A. Leonelli, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Axa SA (Paris, France)

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 word mark AXACTOR – Application for registration No 15 827 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2019 in Case R 479/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay for those of the applicant.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 26 August 2019 — Frutas Tono v EUIPO — Agrocazalla (Marién)

(Case T-587/19)

(2019/C 363/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frutas Tono, SL (Benifairo de la Valldigna, Spain) (represented by: A. Cañizares Doménech, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agrocazalla, SL (Lorca, 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 European Union figurative mark Marién — Application for registration No 15 146 021

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 June 2019 in Case R 171/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, accordingly, set aside the costs order made against the applicant before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal and, instead, make a further order granting suspension of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO until such time as that Office gives a decision on the declaration of invalidity sought in respect of the opposing mark; or, in the alternative,

— if, when judgment is given by the Court, the opposing mark has already been declared invalid by EUIPO, annul, in addition, the decision of the Board of Appeal, on the ground that it failed duly to analyse the effect on the compatibility of registration of the signs at issue, when it ought to have stayed the proceedings of its own motion; or, in the alternative,

— in the event that the Court does not find as above, declare that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, for all of the reasons argued previously; and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Priority right of the proprietor of the contested mark over the Spanish national marks 1798380 MARIEN, applied for on 12 January 1994 for Class 39; 1800302 MARIEN, applied for on 25 January 1994 for Class 35; and 2222325 MARIEN, applied for on 23 March 1999 for Class 31;
Action brought on 25 September 2019 — JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium v Commission

(Case T-642/19)

(2019/C 383/83)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: JCDecaux Street Furniture Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by A. Winckler and G. Babin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision, in so far as it finds there to be incompatible State aid in favour of JCDecaux in the performance of the 1984 contract, and Articles 2 and 4, in so far as they order the recovery of that aid from JCDecaux by the Belgian State;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 4466 final of 24 June 2019 on State aid SA.33078 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium in favour of JC Decaux Belgium Publicité, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and error of law committed by the Commission in finding that the operation by the applicant of certain advertising facilities covered by the contract of 16 July 1984 beyond their expiry date constitutes an advantage. — The Commission wrongly found there to be an economic advantage despite the compensation mechanism operated by the City of Brussels pursuant to its obligation to safeguard the economic balance of the contract. — The Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and erred in law by finding that the applicant benefited from a saving in terms of rents and tax, which constituted an advantage.

2. Second plea in law, in the alternative, claiming that the hypothetical State aid is compatible with the internal market, pursuant to the Communication from the Commission on the framework for SGEIs (1) and the 2012 Decision on services of general economic interest. (2)

3. Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging infringement by the Commission of its obligation to state reasons in so far as concerns the assessment of the amount to be recovered. — The Commission did not deal adequately with the evidence relied on by the parties, prejudged the amount of aid to be recovered in its press release, and infringed its own internal rules of procedure. — It was impossible to quantify the amount of a hypothetical aid, thereby creating an obstacle to the recovery thereof.

4. Fourth plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the State aid found in the contested decision is time-barred.

(1) Communication from the Commission — European Union framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (2011) (OJ 2012 C 8, p. 15).

(2) Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ 2012 L 7, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 September 2019 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Innenfarbe)

(Case T-625/19)

(2019/C 372/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of the European Union word mark ‘SOS Innenfarbe’ — Application for registration No 17 870 690

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Case R 277/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Decision of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in so far as it rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘SOS Innenfarbe’ in respect of the following goods in Class 2: — ‘Paints, lacquers, lasures, paints, preservatives against rust; Primers; Dyes, colorants, paint paste, mordants; Thickeners for colours; Fixing solutions, siccatives for colours; Thinners and binders for paints, lacquers and coatings; Solvents for thinning paints; Preservatives for wood, wood mordants and wood preservatives; Coatings, including textured; bactericides and/or fungicides; Corrosion inhibiting admixtures; Protective preparations for metals’;

— order EUIPO to allow the application for registration to be published, as lodged;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 October 2019 — Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings v EUIPO (sound mark)

(Case T-668/19)

(2019/C 399/112)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Ardagh Metal Beverage Holdings GmbH & Co. KG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU sound mark — Registration No 17 912 475

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2019 in Case R 530/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Distortion of facts (breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council);

— Infringement of the duty to state reasons (Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council);

— Failure to have regard to the relevant case-law;

— Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Breach of Article 72(2) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of Union law, in particular the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality. — The applicant could legitimately believe, firstly, that the examination carried out by the Commission concerned only the measures and persons identified in the decision to open the formal investigation procedure, and, secondly, that if the examination was extended to the sale of the activity or to its person, the Commission would consequently extend the decision relating to the formal examination procedure and would hear it. — The repayment obligation must, as regards the initial beneficiary, in any event be considered to be contrary to the principle of proportionality in so far as it exceeds the price which was actually paid for the repurchase of the activity and, as regards the applicant, in so far as it exceeds the difference between the sale price, which is allegedly underestimated, and the fair price.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, and of Article 14 and Article 27(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and of Articles 11, 12 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18) — The applicants claim in that regard that the Commission failed to remedy the procedural defect found by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 21 September 2017, Ferriera Valsabbia, Valsabbia Investimenti and Alfa Acciai v Commission (joined Cases C-86/15 P and C-87/15 P, EU:C:2017:717), following which the Commission adopted the contested decision.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 October 2019 – inMusic Brands v EUIPO – Equipson (Marq)

(Case T-687/19)

(2019/C 399/120)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: inMusic Brands, Inc. (Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: D. Rose, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Equipson, SA (Silla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Marq – European Union trade mark No14 585699

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 July 2019 in Case R 1759/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and maintain the registration in respect of the relevant goods;

— order EUIPO and any party involved in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the General Court, the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 October 2019 – Teva Pharmaceutical Industries v EUIPO (Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben)

(Case T-697/19)

(2019/C 413/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Weniger Migräne. Mehr vom Leben – Application for registration No 17 942 400

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 in Case R 779/2019-5

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.

Plea 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 27 September 2019 – Sasol Germany and Others v Commission

(Case T-661/19)

(2019/C 406/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sasol Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), SI Group - Béthune (Béthune, France), BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1194 of 5 July 2019 on the identification of 4-tert-butylphenol (PTBP) as a substance of very high concern pursuant to Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2019, L 187, p. 41);

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-640/19, Sasol Germany and Others v ECHA.