ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/49

Action brought on 6 September 2017 — France v Commission

(Case T-609/17)

(2017/C 382/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in part Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes certain export refunds paid by the French Republic in respect of the financial years 2011 to 2014;

— order the 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 infringement of the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission based its decision, for the most part, on purported serious failures by the French Republic to fulfil its obligations in the area of checks on the water content of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds.

However, it is incorrect to assert that the French authorities have seriously failed to fulfil those obligations, having regard to the EU legislation and the enhanced measures that have been put in place since 2010. The analyses of the water content form part of the checks on the sound, fair and marketable quality of frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds that are carried out on the basis of Article 5(4) of Regulation No 1276/2008. According to the applicant, that provision does not require every physical check on frozen chickens intended for export receiving refunds to include a laboratory analysis of the water content.

Thus, it considers that it was for the French authorities to determine the control measures to be taken, provided that those measures were proportionate having regard to the financial risk for the EAGF. In that regard, the applicant claims that the French authorities have put in place an ambitious scheme which takes that financial risk into account.
—

In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants, at the expense of the Single Resolution Fund established in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 806/2014, compensation for the damage caused to the applicants as a direct consequence of the Decision concerning the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL and the value of which corresponds to the market value of the capital instruments of the banking institution the day preceding (6 June 2017) the implementation of the resolution scheme; in the alternative, in the event that the Court does not uphold the previous claim for compensation, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation, the value of which corresponds to the difference, which will be determined by the valuation of the independent person laid down in Article 20(16) of Regulation No 806/2014, between the payment in respect of their claims received by the applicants pursuant to the application of the Decision and the amount they would have received under a normal insolvency procedure;
—

In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicants for the harm suffered, in an amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, updated at the date of resolution, and the related default interest accrued from that date up to the date the reimbursement will be made;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/39

Action brought on 6 August 2017 — Gestvalor 2040 and Others v SRB

(Case T-520/17)

(2017/C 402/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Gestvalor 2040, SL (Madrid, Spain) and 596 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should take note of the annulment proceedings against the ‘Decision of the Single Resolution Board made at the Executive Session on 7 June 2017 relating to the resolution plan of Banco Popular Español, S.A., legal person identification No 80H66LPTVDLM0P28XF25, addressed to the FROB (SRB/EES/2017/08)’and, upon the completion of the relevant procedures;

— Annul the contested Decision;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/41

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Euroways v Commission and SRB

(Case T-643/17)

(2017/C 424/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Euroways, SL (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and C. Iglesias Megías, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/35

Action brought on 12 October 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-703/17)

(2017/C 437/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: V. Marsland, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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: EU figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘Papouis Halloumi’ — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2017 in Case R 2924/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/42

Action brought on 28 September 2017 — Miralla Inversiones v Commission and SRB

(Case T-660/17)

(2017/C 424/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Miralla Inversiones, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/21

Action brought on 17 October 2017 — The Vianel Group v EUIPO — Viania Dessous (VIANEL)

(Case T-724/17)

(2018/C 013/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Vianel Group LLC (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Perrichon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Viania Dessous GmbH (Mössingen, Germany)

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 ‘VIANEL’ — Application for registration No 1 181 484

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2017 in Case R 285/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the applicant’s application;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Opponent to pay the Applicant’s costs of this Application and the proceedings before the Office.

Plea in law
—

Declare that the EU has incurred financial liability for the damage caused and order the SRM fund to pay an amount corresponding to the value of the capital instruments before the implementation of the resolution mechanism, or in the alternative, the value of those instruments according to expert valuation carried out by an independent party, in accordance with Article 340, on the basis of which the applicants bring, in addition to the annulment proceedings, an action for damages;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/42

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Ruiz Jayo and Others v SRB

(Case T-526/17)

(2018/C 022/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: María Concepción Ruiz Jayo (Madrid, Spain) and 3499 other applicants (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón, F. Cremades García and M. Ruiz Núñez, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Declare this action for annulment admissible and well founded;

— Pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 inapplicable or, in the alternative, declare Articles 21, 22(2)(a) and 24 inapplicable, as well as Articles 18 and 23 thereof;

— Annul the contested SRB Decision;

— Order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants in respect of harm caused to them by the implementation of rules contrary to EU law;

— In the alternative, order SRB to pay compensation to the applicants, as shareholders and creditors, based on the consideration that the Banco Popular’s valuation presented by the applicants is the final valuation under Regulation No 806/2014 in order to determine whether shareholders and creditors would have received better treatment had the institution under resolution initiated ordinary insolvency proceedings;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the Decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08) allowing the resolution of the Banco Popular Español, S.A.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/50

Action brought on 15 November 2017 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Beats Electronics (i.Beat)

(Case T-748/17)

(2018/C 022/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, M. Alber, A. Schönfleisch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beats Electronics LLC (Culver City, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘i.Beat’– EU trade mark No 5 009 139

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 September 2017 in Joined Cases R 2175/2016-4 and R 2213/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the appeal of the Applicant against the decision of the Defendant’s Cancellation Division dated September 29th, 2016 and thus upholds the Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation and revokes the Applicant’s rights in respect of European Union trade mark No 005009139

— dismiss of Cancellation Applicant’s application for revocation;

— order the Cancellation Applicant and EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs necessarily incurred by the Applicant before the Board of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a), of Regulation No 2017/1001;
—

annul the Commission’s implied negative decision of 24 August 2017, resulting from the failure by the European Commission, under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, to reply within the prescribed time-limit to the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 10 July 2017 in relation to the access to documents request registered on 2 May 2017 under No 2017/2592, insofar as concerns information produced or exchanged in the context of a call for applications for pan-European systems providing mobile satellite services;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/31

Action brought on 30 November 2017 — United Wineries v EUIPO — Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín (VIÑA ALARDE)

(Case T-779/17)

(2018/C 042/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: United Wineries, SA (Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: J. Oria Sousa-Montes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compañía de Vinos Miguel Martín, SL (Cigales, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: United Wineries, SA

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘VIÑA ALARDE’ — Application for registration No 13 390 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2017 in Case R 281/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action, together with its annexes, admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the Applicants’ rights of defence as deriving from Article 48(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Articles 27(1) and 27(2) of Regulation 1/2003, the duty of EU institutions to conduct an impartial investigation, as deriving from Article 41(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the principle of the presumption of innocence, as laid down in Article 48(1) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
—

annul the decision of the EPSO selection board of 7 March 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of open competition EPSO/AD/331/16;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/34

Action brought on 1 December 2017 — GE Healthcare v Commission

(Case T-783/17)

(2018/C 042/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: GE Healthcare A/S (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: D. Scannell, Barrister, G. Castle and S. Oryszczuk, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision C(2017) 7941 final of 23 November 2017 suspending the applicant’s marketing authorisations for Omniscan (INN gadodiamide);

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to the present 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 the contested decision infringes Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the precautionary principle.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of non-discrimination.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is in any event disproportionate.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the general principle of good administration.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/43

Action brought on 28 December 2017 — Negru v EUIPO — Sky (SkyPrivate)

(Case T-837/17)

(2018/C 072/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Alexandru Negru (Iaşi, Romania) (represented by: I.-M. Iliescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Skyprivate’

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 October 2017 in Case R 349/2017-2

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 63/18

Action brought on 27 December 2017 — Aeris Invest v ECB

(Case T-827/17)

(2018/C 063/24)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Aeris Invest Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco, C. Iglesias Megías and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Decisions of the ECB LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 of 7 November 2017; and

— Order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with Article 263 TFEU and Article 8(3) of the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3), this action seeks annulment of the Decisions of the European Central Bank LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 of 7 November 2017 relating to confirmatory requests for access to ECB documents.

In support of the action, the applicant relies upon four pleas in law:

1. First plea in law: Decisions LS/MD/17/405, LS/PT/17/406 and LS/MD/17/419 infringe Article 4(1)(c) of the Access Decision inasmuch as they deny the applicant access to information on the grounds that the documents are claimed to be, fully or in part, protected by a general presumption of non-accessibility because they are confidential documents covered by the principle of professional secrecy applicable to the institutions.

2. Second plea in law: Decision LS/PT/17/406 infringes the second and sixth indents of Article 4(1)(a) of the Access Decision inasmuch as it states that disclosure of Banco Popular’s use of ELA (emergency liquidity assistance) in the days preceding its resolution and of information regarding its liquidity situation and capital ratios could in fact specifically sap the efficiency of the monetary policy and financial stability of the Union or of a Member State.

3. Third plea in law: Decision LS/PT/17/406 and Decision LS/MD/17/419 infringe the first indent of Article 4(2) of the Access Decision by stating that the documents and information requested are commercially sensitive material that could affect the commercial interests of the Banco Popular and Banco Santander.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/47

Action brought on 11 January 2018 — Zweirad-Center Stadler v EUIPO — Triumph Designs (Triumph)

(Case T-12/18)

(2018/C 072/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zweirad-Center Stadler GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Ruess and A. Doepner-Thiele, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triumph Designs Ltd (Swadlincote, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triumph’ — Application for registration No 6 717 672

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2017 in Case R 665/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it refused the trade mark application for the goods in classes 9, 12 and 25;

— reject the opposition in its entirety and allow the trade mark to be registered for those goods, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may adopt the consequent measures;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law