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

Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission

(Case T-680/19)

(2019/C 423/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 - SA.44671 (2019/NN) – Ireland, concerning alleged illegal state aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced business rates;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, to the effect that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of state aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Action brought on 10 September 2019 – ENIL Brussels Office and Others v Commission

(Case T-613/19)

(2019/C 413/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Network on Independent Living Brussels Office (ENIL Brussels Office) (Brussels, Belgium), Validity Foundation (Budapest, Hungary), Center for Independent Living - Sofia (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Vooren and Ł. Gorywoda, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul an act of the European Commission refusing to interrupt payment deadlines or suspend payments associated with the Call for Proposals BG16RFOP001-5 002‘Support for the deinstitutionalisation of services for elderly people and people with disabilities’ under Priority Axis 5 ‘Regional social infrastructure’ of Operational Programme ‘Regions in Growth’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the rules on standing to challenge an illegal act of EU institutions are discriminatory on the grounds of disability, in conjunction with the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. — The applicants submit that the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities provides for an action by third party and the applicants are sufficiently representative to file an action to defend persons who are unable to defend themselves against discrimination resulting from the decision of the Commission not to interrupt payment deadlines or suspend payments associated with the call for proposals in question.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested act affects the legal position of a clearly identified group of persons that are not capable of representing themselves before a court. This plea is divided into the following two limbs: — The contested act is of direct and individual concern to a closed group of 1020 persons with disabilities located in Bulgaria; — The said group of persons is unable to represent themselves before a court.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested act, the defendant infringed its obligations under, first, Regulation (EU) 1303/2013 (1)and, second, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320).
Action brought on 4 November 2019 — HA v Commission

(Case T-736/19)

(2019/C 432/80)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HA (represented by S. Kreicher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— admit the present action as procedurally valid;

— declare it to be well founded;

— consequently, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority dated 13 August 2019, notified on 24 August 2019, in response to the applicant’s claim of 14 April 2019 (No R/249/19);

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the legal and regulatory provisions applicable and, in particular, Commission Decision C(2007)3195 of 2 July 2007 laying down general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses, in so far as the contested decision set a ceiling for reimbursement of EUR 3 100.00 for the rental of equipment for the treatment of sleep apnoea for the period from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2024, whereas the aforementioned Decision does not set any maximum reimbursable amount in the event of rental for a period of use that is equal to or greater than three months.
Action brought on 13 November 2019 – Novolipetsk Steel v Commission

(Case T-790/19)

(2020/C 10/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novolipetsk Steel PAO (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;

— maintain the effects of the contested Regulation until the defendant adopts the measures needed to comply with the judgment of the General Court, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.

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 defendant lacked competence and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/477 (‘Combined Effect Regulation’) (2) and Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘Basic AD Regulation’) (3), by imposing varying levels of anti-dumping duties, depending on whether or not quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of the Combined Effect Regulation and Article 9(5) of the Basic AD Regulation by only amending the anti-dumping measures once the quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 of 2 September 2019 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to safeguard measures, OJ L 227, 3.9.2019, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2015/477 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures, OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 11.

(3) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification), OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 November 2019 — Govern d'Andorra v EUIPO

(Andorra)

(Case T-806/19)

(2020/C 27/64)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Govern d'Andorra (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Andorra — Application for registration No 16 797 912

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 737/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply is the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test causes a CFC charge to apply. In fact, although, on the applicants’ own facts, the position is clear, the significant people functions test is generally excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 December 2019 – Totalizator Sportowy v EUIPO – Lottoland Holdings (LOTTOLAND)

(Case T-820/19)

(2020/C 45/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Totalizator Sportowy sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lottoland Holdings Ltd (Ocean Village, Gibraltar)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LOTTOLAND – European Union trade mark No 11 369 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2019 in Case R 97/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the part declaring the EUTM 11 369 981 LOTTOLAND to remain in force for all the services for which the contested EUTM was registered in class 42;

— alter the contested decision by declaring the EUTM 11 369 981 LOTTOLAND invalid in its entirety, including the services for wich the contested decision was registered in class 42;

alternatively,

— remit the case to the EUIPO;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 December 2019 – CrossFit v EUIPO – Hochwarter (CROSSBOX)

(Case T-835/19)

(2020/C 36/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: CrossFit Inc. (Scotts Valley, California, United States) (represented by: D. Mărginean, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marlis Hochwarter (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark CROSSBOX – European Union trade mark No 12 503 471

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 1832/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) corroborated with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 December 2019 — Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a geometric figure)

(Case T-833/19)

(2020/C 45/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grammer AG (Amberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — Application for registration No 15 389 621

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2019 in Case R 1478/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that, even assuming that the CFC measures in question prima facie constituted aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the contested decision wrongly concluded that there was no justification that could apply to defend the compatibility of the measures in question with EU State aid rules. In addition, the contested decision is irrational and inconsistent, in that the Commission has correctly accepted that Chapter 9 of Part 9A of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 is justified in cases where the only reason for a CFC charge to apply under the counterfactual of Chapter 5 of the said Part 9A would be the ‘UK connected capital’ test, on the basis that that test may be excessively difficult to operate in practice, but at the same time, and without providing adequate reasoning, the Commission contends that the said Chapter 9 is never justified in cases where the significant people functions test would cause a CFC charge to apply under the said Chapter 5. In fact, the significant people functions test is excessively difficult to apply in practice, such that the Commission should have found the said Chapter 9 to be justified in the context of that test as well and, hence, it should have concluded that there is no State aid.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the alleged aid measure provides a selective advantage: a) to the companies making use of the 75 % exemption for low- risk qualifying loan relationships, because the Commission has: — wrongly identified the UK CFC Regime as the reference system; — erred in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption constitutes a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique; (ii) the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC Regime; and (iii) qualifying and non-qualifying loan relationships are not in the same legal and factual situation and, in any event, erred in law in applying, by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164; (1) — erred in fact and in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption is not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system in the same way as the Group Financing Exemption that applies to non-trading finance profits falling within section 371EC of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010. b) to the companies making use of the matched interest exemption, because the Commission has: — wrongly identified the UK CFC rules as the reference system; — erred in law by concluding that the matched interest exemption constitutes a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique and the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC rules; (ii) taxpayers qualifying for the matched interest exemption are not in the same legal and factual situation as taxpayers who do not so qualify. — has erred in fact and in law by concluding that the matched interest exemption is not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by holding that the alleged aid measure provides a selective advantage a) to the companies making use of the 75 % exemption for low-risk qualifying loan relationships, because the Commission: — has wrongly identified the UK CFC Regime as the reference system; and has erred in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption constitutes a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique; (ii) the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC Regime; and (iii) qualifying and non-qualifying loan relationships are not in the same legal and factual situation and, in any event, erred in law in applying, by analogy or placing undue reliance upon the terms of Council Directive (EU) 2016/1164. (1) — erred in fact and in law by concluding that the 75 % exemption is not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system in the same way as the Group Financing Exemption that applies to non-trading finance profits falling within section 371EC of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 (capital investments from the UK). b) to the companies making use of the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions, because the Commission has: — wrongly identified the UK CFC Rules as the reference system and has erred in law by concluding that the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions constitute a derogation from the reference tax system, on the basis that: (i) the finding of a derogation is based erroneously on the regulatory technique and the significant people functions test is not the central test for the UK CFC Rules; (ii) taxpayers qualifying for the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions are not in the same legal and factual situation as taxpayers who do not so qualify. — erred in fact and in law by concluding that the matched interest and qualifying resources exemptions are not justified by the nature and the overall structure of the tax system.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 December 2019 — Production Christian Gallimard v EUIPO — Éditions Gallimard (PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD)

(Case T-863/19)

(2020/C 61/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Production Christian Gallimard (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Dreyfuss-Bechmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Éditions Gallimard la nouvelle revue française éditions de la nouvelle revue française SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for the European Union word mark ‘PCG CALLIGRAM CHRISTIAN GALLIMARD’ — Application for registration No 15 299 589

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2019 in Case R 2316/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application and the annexes admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the company Éditions Gallimard (if that company intervenes in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 20 November 2019 – HC v Commission

(Case T-804/19)

(2020/C 54/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HC (represented by: G. Pandey and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, the decision of 20 August 2019 of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, lodged on 17 April 2019, including the rejection of the request for EUR 50 000 compensation;

— annul the EPSO/Selection Board decision of 21 March 2019 rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit him to the next phase of the competition;

— annul the decision of 28 January 2019 at the online EPSO account not to include the applicant in the draft list of officials selected for the purposes of the competition EPSO/AD/363/18;

— annul the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/363/18, published on 11 October 2018, (1) and, in its entirety, the resulting draft list of officials selected to take part in the aforesaid competition and/or declare it unlawful and inapplicable to the applicant under Article 277 TFEU;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 50 000 in damages in respect of the harm resulting from the abovementioned contested decisions;

— as a preliminary matter, where appropriate, declare Article 90 of the Staff Regulations invalid and inapplicable in the present proceedings, under Article 277 TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in respect of the applicant’s work experience and, in this context, that the obligation to motivate a decision was not fulfilled and that Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 296 TFEU were infringed.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s right to be heard and, in this context, the infringement of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the violation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation No. 1 of 1958 (2) and, in this context, the infringement of Articles 1d and 28 of the Staff Regulations as well as of Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the illegality of the talent screener in the light of Articles 1d, 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations.

(1) OJ 2018 C 368A, p. 1.

(2) Regulation No 1 of the Council of 15 April 1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I 1952-1958, p. 59).