ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/48

Action brought on 28 August 2017 — Unigroup v EUIPO — Pronova Laboratories (nailicin)

(Case T-587/17)

(2017/C 347/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Unigroup ApS (Lyngby, Denmark) (represented by: M. Rijsdijk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pronova Laboratories BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘nailicin’ — Application for registration No 14 096 499

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 in Case R 2359/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare Benelux registration no. 894 557 unsubstantiated and remit the matter to the Opposition Division or Board of Appeal of EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/39

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa v Commission and SRB

(Case T-507/17)

(2017/C 347/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Fundación Pedro Barrié de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa (La Coruña, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín y B. Fernández García, 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 taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

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.
—

The applicants submit that the contested Regulation breaches the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination by treating the substance differently — by including it on Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation — than other substances, including antimony lead yellow. According to the applicants, both substances were in a comparable situation: they were both considered as part of the same prioritisation round, they both received (or should have received) a total prioritisation score of 17, and in both cases their priority assessment involved grouping considerations. However, so the applicants state, they were treated differently by ECHA and the European Commission as the substance was recommended and later included in Annex XIV whereas antimony lead yellow was not recommended for inclusion and thus not included on Annex XIV.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant has played a part in supporting the Syrian regime. Thus, the following arguments are put forward against the findings made in the contested acts: — Mr Abdulkarim cannot be classified as an ‘influential businessman’; — He is not connected with the regime, has no influence over it and does not pose a true risk of circumvention of the restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Syria; — His past involvement in Alkarim For Trade and Industry L.L.C. or in other companies active in the Middle Eastern petroleum, industrial oils, lubricants and greases sector could not mean either that he should be classified as an ‘important businessman’; — He does not reside and therefore does not carry on any activities in Syria.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/21

Action brought on 11 August 2017 — López Campo and Others v SRB

(Case T-530/17)

(2017/C 369/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Mario López Campo (Pontevedra, Spain) and eight other applicants (represented by: F. Cabadas García, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRD/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, which it adopted on 7 June 2017, putting the institution Banco Popular Español S.A. under resolution as of 7 June 2017 and declare that the Board is responsible for compensating the applicants in the amounts set out in the application;

— In the alternative, annul Decision SRD/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, which it adopted on 7 June 2017, putting the institution Banco Popular Español S.A. under resolution as of 7 June 2017 and declare that the Board is responsible for compensating the applicants in the amounts resulting from the multiplication of the number of their shares by the final listing price prior to Decision SRD/EES/2017/08.

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.
2.

Second plea in law, concerning the decision of 26 April 2017, alleging [infringement] of Article 41 of the Charter committed by the defendant and breach of its obligation to state reasons and duty of care, in that it claims that the decision against which the applicant brought a claim has been annulled and the decision taken to open an enquiry, and in that it deduces therefrom that there is no need to grant her claim for compensation. The applicant is also of the view that she has shown that she has suffered separate harm which cannot be remedied by annulment of the contested decision. In her submission, the defendant therefore should not only have annulled the decision challenged by the claim but should also have made good that harm.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/42

Action brought on 24 August 2017 — Primart v EUIPO — Bolton Cile España (PRIMART Marek Łukasiewicz)

(Case T-584/17)

(2017/C 374/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjno-Handlowe ‘Primart’ Marek Łukasiewicz (Wołomin, Poland) (represented by: J. Skołuda, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolton Cile España, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours red, white and dark blue, containing the word elements ‘Primart Marek Łukasiewicz’ — Application for registration No 13 682 299

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2017 in Case R 1933/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/32

Action brought on 23 August 2017 — UD v Commission

(Case T-574/17)

(2017/C 369/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: UD (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 2 November 2016 by which the Commission refused to grant prior authorisation for the reimbursement of medical costs relating to the applicant’s medical treatment;

— order the European 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 a manifest error of assessment vitiating the ground for refusal to reimburse based on the alleged lack of scientific validity of the treatment at issue.
—

Annul the decision of the European Food Safety Authority of 18 July 2017, notified to the applicants on 20 July 2017, on the assessment of the confidentiality claims made in relation to the application for renewal of the approval process for Thiram as an active substance;
—

Annul the decision adopted by the Single Resolution Board in the light of the recitals, articles and principles set out and order the adoption of a new decision which reflects, with full transparency and certainty, the actual financial situation, in commercial terms, of Banco Popular Español, S.A., and, on that basis, order that appropriate measures be taken;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/59

Action brought on 26 September 2017 — Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest and Others v Commission

(Case T-673/17)

(2017/C 382/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Port autonome du Centre et de l’Ouest SCRL (La Louvière, Belgium), Port autonome de Namur (Namur, Belgium), Port autonome de Charleroi (Charleroi, Belgium), Port autonome de Liège (Liège, Belgium) and Région wallonne (Jambes, Belgium) (represented by: J. Vanden Eynde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare this application admissible as regards each of the applicants and, in consequence, annul Commission Decision SA.38393 (2016CP, ex 2015/E) — Taxation of ports in Belgium (C(2017) 5174 final);

— Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

— Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely, in essence, on a single plea in law. In their opinion, from the outset the Commission disregarded Article 93 TFEU, which institutes specific rules for the transport sector and, accordingly, for ports, thus failing to take account of the intention of the European legislature.

The Commission’s assessment is not justified either in fact or in law and runs counter to the text of Article 1 of the Belgian Income Code (CIR) and the prerogatives of the public authorities to define non-economic activities of general interest.

Nor is the Commission’s position consistent with the Proposal for a Directive of 16 March 2011 (COM/2011/0121 final) on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) which provides, even for commercial companies, for an exemption from tax in respect of subsidies directly linked to the acquisition, construction or improvement of fixed assets.

Furthermore, by giving Belgium formal notice to amend its tax legislation, the Commission is seeking to bypass the taxation competence of the Member States, by imposing a tax harmonisation which is without its competence under Article 113 TFEU. It thus omits to take account of the Member States’ prerogatives to define public service activities and the scope of direct taxation, the obligation to ensure the proper functioning of services of general interest (‘SGIs’) necessary to social and economic cohesion and the discretionary organisation of the organisation of SGIs. The European legislature devolved to the Member States the competence to exempt from taxation activities which they define at their absolute discretion to be public service activities.

The applicants are of the opinion that the essential activities of the internal Walloon ports are SGIs, which are not governed, in accordance with EU law, by the competition rules.

Finally, the European criteria for the definition of State aid are not satisfied in the present case, in particular as regards the criterion of selectiveness.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/50

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Mamas and Papas v EUIPO — Wall-Budden (Cot bumpers)

(Case T-672/17)

(2017/C 402/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mamas and Papas Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister and B. Whitehead, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jane Wall-Budden (Byfleet, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design of cot bumpers — Community design No 1230460-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2017 in Case R 208/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare Community Registered Design No 1230460-0001 invalid;

— order the design holder to bear the costs and fees of the applicant in the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation No 6/2002;

— The Board of Appeal failed to give less weight to features not visible in use;
—

Take note of this action for annulment of Decision SRB/EES /2017/08 of 7 June 2017 concerning the resolution of Banco Popular, as well as the valuation on which it is based and, once the relevant verifications have been completed, declare the action admissible and follow the procedure set out in Articles 120 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/37

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Ballesté Torralba and Others v SRB

(Case T-528/17)

(2017/C 424/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: María Ballesté Torralba (Alcarrás, Spain), David Lozano Jiménez (Alcarrás), María Carmen Estruch Martínez (Alcarrás) and Ramón Ribes Jové (Alcarrás) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

— Order the payment of compensation in the sum of EUR 37 877 to applicants 1, in the sum of EUR 11 000 to applicants 2, and in the sum of EUR 1 309,14 to Ms María Ballesté Torralba.

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.
—

The applicant alleges that he was given a salary grade corresponding to Function Group I for his first contract and at the bottom of Function Group II for the second employment contract he was offered, while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks.
—

annul Notice of Open Competitions — Administrators and assistants in the buildings sector — EPSO/AD/342/17 (AD 6) — Building management engineers (including environmental and services engineers) — EPSO/AST/141/17 (AST 3) — Profile 1. Building construction coordinators/technicians — Profile 2. Building coordinators/technicians in air conditioning and electromechanical and electrical engineering — Profile 3. Occupational safety/building safety assistants, published in Official Journal of the European Union No C 242 A of 27 July 2017;
—

In accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 340 TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order SRB to pay to the applicants compensation for the harm suffered, in the following amounts: i. Shareholders: the net financial value per Banco Popular share, which will be quantified precisely by means of further work on our expert report set out in Annex A.5, once we have been given the provisional and definitive valuations carried out by ‘independent experts’ as required under Article 20 of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 (findings of the expert report, Annex A.5.1, page 106); ii. Holders of Tier 1 capital instruments: the amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, at the date of resolution, and corresponding default interest as of that date up to the date on which the corresponding reimbursement is made (expert report, Annex A.5.2, page 105); iii. Holders of Tier 2 capital instruments: the amount corresponding to the nominal value of the bonds, at the date of resolution, and corresponding default interest as of that date up to the date on which the corresponding reimbursement is made (expert report, Annex A.5.3, page 12);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/47

Action brought on 4 October 2017 — De Longhi Benelux v EUIPO (COOKING CHEF GOURMET)

(Case T-697/17)

(2018/C 005/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Arnott, A. Nicholls, solicitors and G. Hollingworth, barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COOKING CHEF GOURMET’ — Application for registration No 15 549 637

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 July 2017 in Case R 231/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— the Office shall bear its own costs of the proceedings before the Office and General Court and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
—

In the contested decisions, the Commission found that the State aid was compatible, not on the basis of Article 107(1) TFEU, invoked by the applicant, but rather on the basis of Article 107(3) TFEU. Consequently, those decisions are irrelevant in relation to the legal basis of the claim made in the action for damages brought before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) and do not constitute legally binding acts as regards the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/24

Action brought on 27 October 2017 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-730/17)

(2018/C 013/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 22 August 2017 (C(2017) 5879 final) of the Secretary- General on behalf of the European Commission, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to European Commission documents relating to an exhaustive list of all the specific contracts signed between the Commission and a specific supplier during the last six years and to a copy of all requests for quotation related to those specific contracts;

— order the Commission to provide this information in a clear and complete manner in order to allow the public and the applicant to calculate the number of person-days that the specific supplier invoiced to the Commission per year;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

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 a failure by the defendant to carry out an individual assessment in relation to the requested documents, in breach of Article 4(6) and Article 6(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that none of the exceptions to disclosure under Regulation No 1049/2001 applies in the present case and that the Commission has failed to substantiate the disproportionate burden that it claims would result from a full examination and disclosure of 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).
—

Annul the contested decision of the Single Resolution Board and declare that it is null and void as from the date of its adoption and, in the alternative, if annulment is impossible, declare that the applicant is entitled to compensation for the harm caused by that decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/61

Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA)

(Case T-777/17)

(2018/C 022/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Xianhao Pan (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Entertainment One UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘TOBBIA’ — EU trade mark No 11 775 509

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 1776/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Failure to state reasons, breach of the valuation method of the relationship between the brands as well as a lack of assessment as to the assessment of likelihood of confusion of the marks;