ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/36

Action brought on 7 October 2014 — CEAHR v Commission

(Case T-712/14)

(2015/C 007/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Confédération Européenne des Associations d’Horlogers-Réparateurs (CEAHR) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Mathijsen and P. Dyrberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the European Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5462 final, of 29 July 2014, void;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 5462 final of 29 July 2014 in case AT.39097 — Watch Repair, by which the Commission rejects the applicant’s complaint pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) concerning the refusal by several manufacturers of prestige/luxury watches to supply spare parts to independent repairers.

In support of the action, the applicant submits that i) the Commission’s findings are based on manifest errors of appraisal, in law and fact, ii) that the contested decision fails to provide appropriate reasoning for the Commission’s findings and iii) that the contested decision is the result of a procedure during which the Commission failed to attentively examine the elements of law and fact raised in the complaint, in violation of applicant’s right to good administration.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission Decision C 2014/2002 final, of 31 March 2014, infringes article 17 of the Treaty on the European Union, the Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions, the Commission Implementing Decision 2012/115/EU, of 10 February 2012, laying down rules concerning the transnational plans referred to in Decision 2010/75/EU, the UNECE Convention, in conjunction with the Council Decision, of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the UNECE Convention (2005/370/EC), Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programs on the environment, and Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 May 2008, on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/30

Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission

(Case T-670/14)

(2014/C 431/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Milchindustrie-Verband e.V. (Berlin, Germany), Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (Berlin) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the defendant’s Communication 2014/C 200/01 of 28 June 2014 on the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, in so far as the dairy processing industry (NACE 10.51) is not mentioned in Annex 3 although it satisfies the criteria set out in Section 3.7.2 of the guidelines;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to a manifest error of assessment in the choice of the reference period — In this connection, the applicants submit that, in establishing the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (1), the defendant infringed elementary principles relating to the exercise of discretion by relying on obsolete data in calculating the trade intensity of the industries, although new data was available.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to an insufficient examination of the factual situation — The applicants submit that the defendant also misused its powers because it did not, in calculating the trade intensity, identify and take into account all of the products that are actually produced by the dairy industry. That results in a distorted presentation of the competitive position.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements — The applicants further submit that, in classifying the economic sectors under Annex 3 or 5 of the guidelines on State aid, the defendant infringes Article 296 TFEU because it does not state anywhere how and on the basis of what data the criterion of trade intensity is calculated and determined. As a result the parties concerned are prevented from effectively exercising their rights.

(1) Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/39

Action brought on 12 November 2014 — Comber v Commission

(Case T-752/14)

(2015/C 034/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Comber SA (Lausanne, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Heel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 16 July 2014 (REM 05/2013) on the refusal of the application for remission of import duties amounting to EUR 4 61 415,12;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant submits that the post-clearance customs duties for the import of linen fabric from Latvia in the years 1999 to 2002 must be remitted in accordance with Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) due to the presence of special circumstances. The applicant cites as special circumstances serious breaches of obligations by the Latvian customs authorities, serious breaches of obligations by the European Commission/OLAF and serious misconduct of the German customs authorities. In the applicant’s view, those circumstances cannot be attributed to obvious negligence on its part.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/38

Action brought on 14 November 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission

(Case T-764/14)

(2015/C 026/49)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfiri and I Ambazis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the European Commission decision Ares(2014) 2903214 of 5 September 2014 whereby the Commission rejected the applicants’ tender within the framework of the EuropeAid/135040/C/SER/MULTI closed procurement procedure;·

— as appropriate, order the restoration of the status quo ante;

— order the Commission to pay all the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the following grounds:

First, because the experience of the participants was evaluated at the stage of the award procedure, although that experience had already been examined at the pre-selection stage.

Second, because the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons for the decision by giving insufficient reasons for the ranking of the applicants’ technical offer and failing to communicate the full composition of the winning consortium and the essential elements of the financial offer.

Third, because the Commission committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicants’ technical offer, infringing at the same time the principle of equal treatment of participants.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/40

Action brought on 16 December 2014 — Liu v OHIM — DSN Marketing (Cases for portable computers)

(Case T-813/14)

(2015/C 065/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Min Liu (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: R. Bailly and S. Zhang, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DSN Marketing Ltd (Crawley, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 002044180-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2014 in Case R 1864/2013-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, fact and procedure in manifestly failing to correctly assess the counterfactual, in particular regarding the availability of private capital to participate in the restructuring of BES. — The Commission breached numerous requirements of the Banking Communication by failing to assess at all, or alternatively failing to provide reasoning, in respect of whether: a) aid was limited to the minimum necessary, b) private capital had been exploited to the maximum extent, c) an exception to the requirement that subordinated debt holders contribute in full on basis of impact on financial stability and disproportionality applied, and d) the no creditor worse off principle had been respected. — The Commission failed to investigate the counterfactual and therefore made an incorrect factual assumption that the only alternative to the notified measures was liquidation of BES. The Commission failed to consider the evidence that new private capital was available and could have reduced the State aid required by the notified measure. — The Commission was under a duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. In failing to do so, the Commission breached the applicants’ procedural rights under that provision.
Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-849/14 P)

(2015/C 073/57)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should: uphold the present appeal and, reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, the assertion that the proceedings are pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, and paragraphs 43, 44, 50, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of the grounds for that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; adopt any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary in relation to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents considered useful for refuting the arguments raised therein.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2014 in Case F-59/09 RENV De Nicola v EIB.

The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal.

1. The appellant contests the finding of inadmissibility as regards his head of claim concerning the Appeals Committee as follows: he makes reference to that body’s rules of operation, challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s assertion that adequate compensation is provided for the harm suffered by removing the annulled measure from his personal file, and alleges an abuse of that court’s judicial powers.

2. The appellant contests as follows the finding of inadmissibility regarding his head of claim concerning the harassment suffered: he challenges the Civil Service Tribunal’s finding that the application for a declaration was inadmissible, makes reference to that court’s failure to give a ruling on that specific application and its refusal to follow the order for reference, states that the new objections proposed by the EIB in the main proceedings are unlawful, and alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal abused its powers by putting itself in the place of his counsel, deciding that it was better not to examine the claim for compensation because it was covered in a more structured way in Case F-52/11.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, as the act is based on an artificial division of the effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-292/1.
3.

Third plea in law: Manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and errors of law in the attribution of the infringement to the applicant, since the Commission did not prove the actual exercise of decisive influence of the applicant over the undertaking concerned — The applicant submits that the Commission should not have attributed the anticompetitive conduct of the undertaking concerned to the applicant, since the applicant and that undertaking did not form a single economic entity. — In particular, the Commission did not prove that the applicant actually exercised decisive influence over the undertaking concerned. In addition, the applicant was unaware of the alleged abusive conduct of the undertaking concerned. — The applicant also claims that, in its attempt to prove the actual exercise of decisive influence, the Commission, when interpreting the facts, infringed, in particular, the presumption of innocence. — Lastly, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Commission did not prove that the alleged exercise of decisive influence was considerable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/21

Action brought on 4 December 2014 — Tempus Energy and Tempus Energy Technology v Commission

(Case T-793/14)

(2015/C 081/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Ltd (Reading, United Kingdom); and Tempus Energy Technology Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Derenne, J. Blockx, C. Ziegler and M. Kinsella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By their action the applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s Decision C(2014) 5083 final of 23 July 2014 in case SA.35980 (2014/N-2) — United Kingdom, Electricity Market Reform — Capacity Market.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to open the formal investigation procedure, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectation and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The applicants submit that: — the Commission failed to properly assess the potential role of Demand-Side Response (‘DSR’) in the UK capacity market; — the restrictions on the duration of DSR contracts under the capacity market violate the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination, and are based on a wrong assessment of the facts; — the requirement for DSR operators to choose between transitional and enduring market auctions violates the principles of legitimate expectation and non-discrimination; — the capacity market’s cost recovery methodology violates the principles of non-discrimination, legitimate expectation and proportionality; — the use of open-ended capacity events rather than time-bound ones in the enduring auctions of the capacity market is contrary to the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation; — the capacity market’s bid bond requirement to obtain access to the auctions violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation; and — the capacity market’s failure to provide for additional remuneration for savings in transmission and distribution losses from DSR violates the principles of non-discrimination and legitimate expectation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/53

Action brought on 6 January 2015 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-3/15)

(2015/C 065/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel, and M. Hecht, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of five parallel stripes placed on the side of a sport shoe) — International registration No 932 758

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 in Case R 1093/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/33

Action brought on 16 January 2015 — Gómez Echevarría/OHIM — M and M Direct (wax by Yuli’s)

(Case T-19/15)

(2015/C 089/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Yuleidy Caridad Gómez Echevarría (Benalmádena, Spain) (represented by: E. López-Chicheri y Selma, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: M and M Direct Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘wax by Yuli’s’ — Community trade mark No 9 0 99 367

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 in Case R 951/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

— in the alternative, should the form of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 and dismiss the application for a declaration that Community trade mark No 9 0 99 367‘wax by Yuli’s’ is invalid, and order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the proceedings contesting the trade mark as well as those of the present proceedings;

— in the further alternative, should the forms of order sought above not be granted, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 November 2014 as to the costs and set aside those incurred in connection with representation in the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 64 of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the application for a declaration that the trade mark was invalid was made by way of an abuse of power.

— Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 53(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, in that there is no likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/34

Action brought on 14 January 2015 — Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei v OHIM — Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini (PICCOLOMINI)

(Case T-20/15)

(2015/C 089/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Henkell & Co. Sektkellerei KG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: J. Flick, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ciacci Piccolomini d’Aragona di Bianchini Società Agricola (Milano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘PICCOLOMINI’ — Application for registration No 10 564 573

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 2265/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM and the third party to bear the costs of proceedings including the costs of the Applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment and error of law by infringing the Commission’s obligations in handling a complaint by incorrectly assessing the European Union interest with regard to all three reasons brought forward by the Commission;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 February 2015 — Shoe Branding Europe v OHIM (Parallel slanted stripes)

(Case T-64/15)

(2015/C 107/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (representation of two parallel slanted stripes) — Application for registration No 10 984 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2014 in Case R 2563/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/37

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (Alfredo alla Scrofa)

(Case T-96/15)

(2015/C 127/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Alfredo alla Scrofa’ — Community trade mark No 6 779 151

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 655/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order Ines di Lelio to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;