ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 April 2022 — TA Towers v EUIPO — Wobben Properties (Building materials)

(Case T-202/22)

(2022/C 222/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: TA Towers ApS (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: L. Andersen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wobben Properties GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 6 352 332-0001 (Building materials)

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2022 in Case R 2493/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 20 November 2020 in Case ICD 108 309;

— order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a lack of proof. The applicant argues that the Council’s submissions with respect to the existence of an ‘inherent risk that the inherited assets will be used to support the activities of the Syrian regime and will flow directly into the regime’s possession, potentially contributing to the regime’s violent repression of the civilian population’ must be definitively rejected as they are unfounded, and lack any factual basis to support them.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (catlover)

(Case T-232/22)

(2022/C 237/90)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark catlover — Application No 18 107 485

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2022 in Case R 717/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 15 April 2022 — Naass and Sea Watch v Frontex

(Case T-205/22)

(2022/C 244/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Marie Naass (Berlin, Germany), Sea Watch eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Van Damme and Q. Declève, lawyers)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Frontex Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022;

— order Frontex to bear the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that, in its Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022, Frontex did not appropriately state the reasons for its refusal to disclose certain documents pertaining to a specific event that took place in the Mediterranean sea on 30 July 2021, on the basis of the public security exception under Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that Decision DGSC/TO/PAD-2021-00350 of 7 February 2022 violates Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 by refusing partial access to the requested documents.

(1) 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. 43).
—

order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, on the basis of Articles 87 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Groz-Beckert v EUIPO (Position mark consisting of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging)

(Case T-277/22)

(2022/C 257/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Groz-Beckert KG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Nielen and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the position mark consisting of the colours red and white on cuboid packaging — Application No 18 243 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2022 in Case R 1444/2021-5

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 (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

Annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/429 of 15 March 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions under-mining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) as well as of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/427 of 15 March 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2) (‘Contested Acts’) — in so far as those acts concern the applicant; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — Flowbird v EUIPO — Apcoa Parking Holdings (FLOWBIRD)

(Case T-296/22)

(2022/C 276/19)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Flowbird (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: C. Pecnard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark FLOWBIRD — International registration designating the European Union No 1 478 123

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2022 in Case R 748/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

— order Apcoa Parking Holdings to pay the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 16 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-269/22)

(2022/C 284/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision C(2022)3253 (final) of the European Commission of 13 May 2022 granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl fumerate Polpharma — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and

— order the Commission 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 failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognize the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2) 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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 May 2022 — Nurel v EUIPO — FKuR Property (Terylene)

(Case T-325/22)

(2022/C 284/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nurel, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: M. Anadón Giménez and J. Learte Álvarez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FKuR Property GmbH (Willich, Germany)

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 Terylene — Application for registration No 18 088 348

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2022 in Case R 1544/2021-4

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 appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— The proof of use submitted by the opponent during the appeal proceedings should have never been admitted, and therefore, the contested decision should have considered only the proof of use submitted during oppositions proceedings;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 June 2022 — Das Neves v Commission

(Case T-357/22)

(2022/C 294/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: José das Neves (La Hulpe, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Vandersteen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of 12 October 2021 taken against him by the [confidential] (1);

— order the defendant to pay him the amount of EUR 20 000 by way of compensation for the financial and non-material damage suffered;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action against the decision of the Commission of 12 October 2021 issuing him with a warning, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of a conflict of interest.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 21 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.

(1) Confidential information omitted.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2022 — BNP Paribas v SRB

(Case T-420/22)

(2022/C 311/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2022/18 of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of 2022 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, (1) the Implementing Regulation (2) and the Delegated Regulation (3) inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 5,6, 7 and 20 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-391/22, Société générale and Others v SRB.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/81 of 19 December 2014 specifying uniform conditions of application of Regulation No 806/2014 with regard to ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (OJ 2015 L 15, p. 1).

(3) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63 of 21 October 2014 supplementing Directive 2014/59 with regard to ex ante contributions to resolution financing arrangements (OJ 2015 L 11, p. 44).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on the transfer of pension rights are unlawful. According to the applicant, those provisions do not provide for the restitution of transferred rights which have given rise to a ‘bonus’ in the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union where that ‘bonus’ does not give rise to any increase in the amount of the pension paid.
Action brought on 1 June 2022 — Danske Fragtmænd v Commission

(Case T-334/22)

(2022/C 326/26)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well founded;

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2022/459 of 10 September 2021 (1); and

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

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 Commission erred by considering that the grant of approximately SEK 5,67 billion to Post Danmark foreseen by the October 2017 Agreement consists of several separate measures, namely (i) one measure covering the grant by Denmark to Post Danmark of SEK 1,683 billion for its redundancy costs; (ii) one measure covering the grant by Denmark of SEK 267 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); (iii) one measure covering the grant by Sweden of SEK 400 million to PostNord AB (to be transferred to Post Danmark); and (iv) one measure covering PostNord Group’s injection to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, even if the capital injection by PostNord Group to Post Danmark of DKK 2,339 billion (SEK 3,3 billion) may be considered as a separate measure (quod non), the Commission erred by finding that the capital injection granted to Post Danmark by PostNord Group did not confer an advantage on Post Danmark.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2022/459 of 10 September 2021 on the State aid SA.49668 (2019/C) (ex 2017/FC) and SA.53403 (2019/C) (ex 2017/FC) implemented by Denmark and Sweden for PostNord AB and Post Danmark A/S (notified under document C(2021) 6568) (OJ 2022 L 93, p. 146).
Action brought on 1 July 2022 — QF v Council

(Case T-386/22)

(2022/C 318/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: QF (represented by: T. Marembert and A. Bass, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 (1) of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the applicant is concerned;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 (2) of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, in so far as the applicant is concerned;

— order the Council 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 a manifest error of assessment. The applicant submits, first, that none of the Council’s items of evidence meets the requirements of the European case-law in terms of the standard and quality of the evidence and, second, that none of the assertions of the Council’s statement of reasons is established. Lastly, the applicant puts forward, in support of her plea, elements of a financial nature, which make it possible to establish that the Council’s reasoning is incorrect.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 55).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 110, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2022 — International British Education XXI v EUIPO — Saint George’s School (IBE ST. GEORGE’S)

(Case T-438/22)

(2022/C 340/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: International British Education XXI SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint George’s School SL (Fornells De La Selva, 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 EU figurative mark IBE ST. GEORGE’S — Application No 18 020 505

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2022 in Case R 2226/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant EU trade mark No 18 020 505 IBE ST. GEORGE’S in respect of all of the goods and services applied for;

— order the intervener and the defendant, if applicable, to pay the costs incurred in all the proceedings before EUIPO and the General Court.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2022 — Izuzquiza and Others v Parliament

(Case T-375/22)

(2022/C 326/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Berlin, Germany), Arne Semsrott (Berlin), Stefan Wehrmeyer (Berlin) (represented by: J. Pobjoy, Barrister-at-Law)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the final decision of the European Parliament, reference A(2021)10718C, dated 8 April 2022, insofar as the European Parliament concluded that it was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(b) and/or (ii) Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1),to justify full and/or partial non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 28 February 2022; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

(1) 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. 43).
Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA

(Case T-388/22)

(2022/C 359/95)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (APT) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: B. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare unfounded the defendant’s claim, contained in debit note No 3242201592/28.1.2022, that the applicant is to reimburse part of the subsidy received for the project MINATRAN, in the amount of EUR 184 224,21, and declare that that amount corresponds to eligible costs;

— order ERCEA to repay to APT the amount of EUR 184 224,21, with default interest, in so far as that amount has been unduly paid; and

— order ERCEA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Aristotelio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (APT) challenges the debit note issued by the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) in relation to the implementation of the project MINATRAN. By that debit note, ERCEA requested that APT reimburse the amount of EUR 184 224,21 which corresponds to part of the subsidy received for the project MINATRAN and a lump sum payment to ERCEA.

In that context, APT asks the General Court of the European Union, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, to declare that the amount referred to above and contested by ERCEA corresponds to eligible costs, and that ERCEA must repay it to APT as an undue payment.

APT claims that:

1. In the first place, ERCEA, in order to declare the costs declared by the international researchers to be ineligible, based its decision on entirely unfounded and unsubstantiated assertions. As a result, ERCEA’s request in the amount of EUR 184 224,21 relating to staff and travel expenses, indirect expenses and the imposition of a flat-rate allowance is unfounded. In addition, the eligibility of the costs has also been shown by way of the evidence submitted by APT.

2. In the second place, ERCEA, requesting the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 184 224,21 on the basis of incomplete and unreliable documents and information, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Charter by, first, infringing APT’s right to be heard and, second, preventing APT from obtaining effective legal protection.