ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be necessary for achieving the intended objectives, the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be appropriate for achieving the intended objectives, and the failure to have regard for the requirement that those measures must be strictly proportionate.
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the selection criteria, which were not fulfilled by the consortium that was awarded the contract in so far as one of its members did not have legal personality for the entire duration of the work and it was, it is claimed, impossible for the consortium awarded the contract to have the references relating to technical and professional capacity as required in the tender specifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/49

Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Dominator International v EUIPO (DREAMLINE)

(Case T-285/16)

(2016/C 260/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dominator International GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Gugerbauer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DREAMLINE’ — Application for registration No 1 222 091

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 in Case R 1669/2015-2

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 No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging, in support of the application for illegality, that, if, contrary to the arguments advanced in the third plea, Article 1(1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 (as amended) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (as amended), are to be interpreted to capture (a) any investigation by a Ukrainian authority irrespective of whether there is any judicial decision or proceedings underpinning, controlling or overseeing it; and/or (b) any ‘abuse of office as a public-office holder in order to procure an unjustified advantage’ irrespective of whether there is an allegation of misappropriation of State funds, the designation criterion would, given the arbitrary width and scope that would result from such a broad interpretation, lack a proper legal base; and/or be disproportionate to the objectives of Article 1(1) of Council decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014. The provisions would therefore be unlawful.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/27

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)

(Case T-308/16)

(2016/C 287/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ClaimsExcellence’ — Application No 13 847 462

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2358/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 279/36

Action brought on 7 June 2016 — Kaane American International Tobacco v EUIPO — Global Tobacco (GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims)

(Case T-292/16)

(2016/C 279/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kaane American International Tobacco Co. Ltd. (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Tobacco FZCO (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘GOLD MONT ORIGINAL Super Slims’ — EU trade mark No 11 361 714

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2492/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the present appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— declare the suspension of the Appeal R 2492/2014-4 until a decision on the parallel proceedings R 1857/2015-4 (which is currently appealed before the General Court) becomes definitive;

— condemn EUIPO (The Boards of Appeal) or subsidiary the other party in the proceedings to bear the costs and fees of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/39

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

(Case T-348/16)

(2016/C 296/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare that the demand made by the defendant in debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26/05/2016 that the Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the MINATRAN project, a sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and declare that that sum constitutes eligible costs; and

— order the European Research Council Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that the sum disputed by ERCEA constitutes eligible costs.

In support of the action, the applicant argues that the costs disputed by ERCEA and, in particular, the staff costs, travel costs and indirect costs are eligible costs. That argument is supported by the evidence which the applicant submitted to ERCEA during the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and, above all, by the comprehensive analysis of the evidence submitted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/25

Action brought on 15 June 2016 — bet365 Group v EUIPO — Hansen (BET365)

(Case T-304/16)

(2016/C 296/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: bet365 Group Limited (Stoke-on-Trent, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC (Queen's Counsel), R. Black and J. Bickle, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Hansen (München, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘BET365’

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 3243/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicant’s fundamental right of defence. The Applicant puts forward that the Commission refers to and bases its decision on (i) the existence of a company which cannot and has not exported during the original investigation period and which cannot and is not a legal, corporate linkage to other exporters; (ii) information to which the Applicant had never access and could never comment, and (iii) alleged events in a hearing for which no record or minutes exist.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/27

Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma v Commission and EMA

(Case T-329/16)

(2016/C 314/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma EEIG (Uxbridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert and B. Van Vooren, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency,

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible and well founded;

— annul the Contested Acts; and

— order the European Commission and the EMA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of an act of the European Commission removing ‘elotuzumab’ from the Union Register of orphan medicinal products for human use and/or a possible act of the European Commission or the European Medicines Agency determining that the orphan designation criteria for ‘elotuzumab’ were not met any more at the time of marketing authorisation of the medicinal product ‘Empliciti’.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts violate Article 5 (12) (b) of the Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1), in conjunction with the principle of proportionality: — First, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, a medicinal product that received a marketing authorisation after the application for marketing authorisation for the orphan medicine, cannot be taken into account under Article 3 (b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000. — Second, pursuant to Article 5(12) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the orphan designation can only be withdrawn when the criteria of Article 3 Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 are no longer met. — Third, pursuant to Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, the EMA and the Commission must apply a standard of proof that supports the objective of the Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested acts infringe Article 5(12)(b) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, in conjunction with Article 5(8) Orphan Medicines Regulation (EC) No 141/2000, as there is no formal Commission decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/34

Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)

(Case T-372/16)

(2016/C 314/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;

— The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;

— The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;

— In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/48

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL HUSBAND)

(Case T-429/16)

(2016/C 343/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL HUSBAND’ — EU trade mark No 5 231 808

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1526/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/51

Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Vivatech (Immunostad)

(Case T-403/16)

(2016/C 335/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J. Plate, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Immunostad’ — EU trade mark No 9 552 225

Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 863/2015–5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs, including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 July 2016 — Omnicom International Holdings v EUIPO –eBay (DATABAY)

(Case T-394/16)

(2016/C 364/13)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Omnicom International Holdings, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: eBay, Inc. (San Jose, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DATABAY’ — EU trade mark application No 12 353 975

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 925/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own and pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/25

Action brought on 23 August 2016 — Cotecnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)

(Case T-465/16)

(2016/C 371/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, J. C. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Cotecnica, SCCL

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘cotecnica OPTIMA’ — Application for registration No 13 292 479

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13/06/2016 in Case R 229/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the proposed evidence admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection, provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/21

Action brought on 19 August 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (LegalPro)

(Case T-472/16)

(2016/C 383/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘LegalPro’ — Application No 13 954 177

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 in Case R 146/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/47

Action brought on 2 September 2016 — Remag Metallhandel and Jaschinsky v Commission

(Case T-631/16)

(2016/C 392/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Remag Metallhandel GmbH (Steyr, Austria) and Werner Jaschinsky (St. Ulrich bei Steyr, Austria) (represented by: M. Lux, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that, given OLAF’s request and subsequent insistence that the authorities of the Member States recover anti-dumping duties for all consignments of silicon metal exported from Taiwan to the EU in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 398/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2004 L 66) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 467/2010 of 25 May 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of silicon consigned from the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in the Republic of Korea or not (OJ 2010 L131), although no or insufficient proof has been provided by OLAF that the silicon imported by Remag from Taiwan is of Chinese origin, the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay damages to the applicants as specified in the application, together with default interest at the rate of 8 % annually, and

— order that the costs of the proceedings before Court be borne by the defendant.

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 by requesting Member States to recover anti-dumping duties before the investigation had confirmed the origin of the goods in order to avoid the allegedly owed duties from becoming time-barred, OLAF instructed and incited national administrations to infringe Articles 220(1) and 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by disregarding in its recovery request the fact that a transhipment of silicon from China does not prove that the silicon is of Chines origin, OLAF infringed the principle of sound administration and the obligation to base its conclusions on substantiated evidence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by claiming that all exports of silicon from Taiwan concerned good originating in China, OLAF disregarded the burden of proof for non-preferential origin.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by claiming that the processing taking place in Taiwan was insufficient for conferring Taiwanese origin without taking into account the use of the processed silicon, OLAF disregarded the rules of origin as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/17

Appeal brought on 14 August 2016 by Elia Fernández González against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 June 2016 in Case F-121/15, Fernández González v Commission

(Case T-455/16 P)

(2016/C 383/24)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) in Case F-121/15 delivered on 14 June 2016 in Elia Fernández González v European Commission;

— Order the Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred before the CST.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts by the judgment under appeal and manifest errors of assessment resulting in an imprecise reasoning in law. The appellant contests in particular paragraphs 29 to 31 and 36 to 39 of the judgment under appeal.
—

require Europol to ask the Greek State Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal of Athens which State Prosecutor ordered the prolongation of the EAW and hence the arbitrary deprivation of the applicant’s liberty from 23 May 2016, and which of the two national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) is operative. He must also answer how it is possible that the applicant’s address in Germany appears in the EAW, yet both national warrants (the EAW is a copy of both) were issued against the applicant because the applicant’s address was allegedly unknown to the Greek judicial authorities;