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

Action brought on 14 July 2020 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of black circles placed over an orange square)

(Case T-455/20)

(2020/C 304/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of black circles placed over an orange square) — European Union trade mark No 14 784 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2020 in Case R 2385/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 August 2020 — Guo v EUIPO — Sand Cph (sandriver)

(Case T-505/20)

(2020/C 320/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiuling Guo (Shanyang Town, China) (represented by: L. Le Stanc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark sandriver — European Union trade mark No 15 856 297

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2019/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare admissible the action brought against the contested decision;

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
(iv)

in any event, order the SRB to indemnify Banco Cooperativo Español, SA (BCE) in respect of: a. the amount corresponding to the default interest in respect of the amount paid in 2016 for the period between 23 June 2016 and the date on which the SRB paid the amounts owed, calculated on the basis of the applicable European Central Bank refinancing rate (at present 0 %), increased by 3,5 percentage points; b. in the alternative to (a) above, and only in the event that the Court considers that the contested decision is lawful but that it does not have retroactive effect, the amount corresponding to the default interest on the amount paid in 2016 for the period between 23 June 2016 to 19 March 2020, the date from which the contested decision took effect, with the interest calculated on the basis of the applicable European Central Bank refinancing rate (at present 0 %), increased by 3,5 percentage points; c. in the alternative to (a) or (b) above, the amount corresponding to the profit that BCE would have obtained from acquiring, in the tender of 16 June 2016, 10-year Spanish sovereign bonds in the amount corresponding to the contribution ex ante for 2016, calculated from 23 June 2016 up to the date on which the SRB paid the amounts owed (or, in the event that the Court holds that the contested decision is lawful but does not have retroactive effect, to 19 March 2020).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 August 2020 — VF International v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-517/20)

(2020/C 339/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, United States)

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 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC — European Union trade mark No 9 419 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2020 in Case R 1665/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
—

order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)

(Case T-532/20)

(2020/C 348/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark REDELLO — Application for registration No 17 929 193

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 2677/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— find that the opposition against the trademark application fails in its entirety or, alternatively, refer the case to the EUIPO in order for it to draw all the necessary consequences form the Court’s decision;

— order the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO and, if necessary, the intervener, to support the cost of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of facts and an error of law as regards the conclusion that the arrangements between the airport manager and Wizz Air did not confer an undue advantage to the latter. — First, the airport manager-s behaviour was not comparable to that of a private operator in a market economy. Second, the Commission wrongly assessed the arrangements as isolated facts and disregarded elements of critical relevance for the Market Economy Operator test (MEO test). Foreseeable developments at the time of the conclusion of the arrangements produced the result that they were not profitable to the airport manager in the medium-long term.
Action brought on 2 September 2020 — MD v Commission

(Case T-552/20)

(2020/C 371/21)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: MD (represented by: A. Ricci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 14 during the 2019 promotion exercise (Administrative Notice No 32-2019 of 14.11.2019).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to state sufficient reasons in the decision rejecting his complaint. The applicant raises in this regard: — Failure by the appointing authority to set out, in the decision rejecting the complaint, the individual and relevant ground justifying the decision not to promote the applicant; — Complete failure to state reasons in relation to the second head of complaint (infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in the comparative examination in particular); — Insufficient statement of reasons in relation to the third head of complaint (infringement of Article 6(2) of the Staff Regulations).

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, in particular on account of the absence of actual consideration of the comparative merits of the officials. The applicant raises in this regard: — Manifest error of assessment regarding the applicant’s level of responsibility during the entire reference period as compared with that of the other promoted officials referred to in the application; — Manifest error of assessment regarding the criterion of the use of languages other than the person’s mother tongue, in the execution of his or her duties, in comparison with the other promoted officials referred to in the application;

3. Third plea in law, alleging age discrimination in relation to the alleged ‘practical effect’ of every promotion. The applicant raises in this regard: — Presumption that the failure to promote the applicant was justified by the absence of financial advantage of the promotion itself on account of the age of the applicant, close to retirement at the material time; — Prohibition of age discrimination and introduction of an unlawful financial criterion as an additional criterion for promotion.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 and the principles of proportionality and sound administration by failure to exercise discretion, in so far as the Commission mechanically applied a fine increase on the grounds of repeated infringement based on a set of (alleged) standard criteria without considering the circumstances of the present case.
Action brought on 1st September 2020 — SRB v EDPS

(Case T-557/20)

(2020/C 390/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, M. Fernandez Ruperez, J. King, agents, H. Kamann, M. Braun and F. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the SRB seeks the annulment of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 under its complaint references 2019-0947, 2019-0998, 2019-0999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122, which held that the SRB infringed Article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (1).

In support of its action, the SRB relies on two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging that the information shared with the third party was not ‘personal data’ within the wording and purpose of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPS infringed the right to a good administration pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not revealing sufficient information on the complaints.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance on which it is based. — It is argued, as regards the alleged anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CFT) issues, that the contested decision does not specify any current non-compliance with AML/CFT rules and that the ECB does not specify any determination by the competent AML/CFT authorities that the applicant breached AML/CFT provisions at the time of the contested decision, — The applicant also alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance with regulatory capital requirements. In this regard, the applicant argues that the contested decision is merely describing the consequences of the MFSA’s, and therefore indirectly the ECB’s, own actions.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU on the ground that there was no claim for repayment under Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.20 of the Grant Agreement. — According to the provisions of the Grant Agreement, the defendant is not entitled to recover the expenditure notified by the applicant, incurred in the first year of the project. That is because the costs are eligible and must therefore be recognised. — Nor can it be argued that the applicant, after leaving the FIBROGELNET-project, was not entitled to reimbursement of costs since, on account of numerous breaches of procedure concerning a beneficiary’s leaving the consortium under Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.35 and seq., the applicant’s participation in the FIBROGELNET-project was not terminated effectively and the coordinator had repeatedly confirmed to the applicant, prior to it allegedly leaving the project, that the costs are eligible expenditure in accordance with Annex II, Part B, Section 2, II.14 of the Grant Agreement. The applicant may therefore lawfully rely on receiving the costs.
—

annul, in its entirety, Article 1 (6) (c)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1054 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 as regards minimum requirements on maximum daily and weekly driving times, minimum breaks and daily and weekly rest periods and Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 as regards positioning by means of tachographs;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)

(Case T-658/20)

(2020/C 433/83)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a cup) — Application for registration No 15 963 994

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 in Case R 554/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision so that his appeal is well-founded and, consequently, EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 be allowed to proceed to entry in the register of EUIPO;

— 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;
Action brought on 30 October 2020 — One Voice v ECHA

(Case T-664/20)

(2021/C 9/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: One Voice (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Ghersi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation;

— rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal infringed the provisions of the REACH Regulation;

and therefore

— annul the ECHA Board of Appeal’s decision of 18 August 2020 No A-010-2018;

— order the defendant 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 an error in the assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation (1) and the REACH Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of Article 18 of the Cosmetics Regulation when applying the REACH Regulation and acted contrary to the objective pursued by the Cosmetics Regulation in the area of animal testing. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the ECHA does not have competence to give a binding interpretation of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Reach Regulation. In this respect, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Reach Regulation establishes the principle of the prohibition of animal testing, except where there is no alternative. No such exception was identified by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November on cosmetic products (OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1 and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 October 2020 — NB v Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case T-648/20)

(2020/C 443/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: NB (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

— as far as necessary, annul the decision to ‘reclassify’/ promote Ms [X] to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

— purely in the alternative, annul all decisions to ‘reclassify’/promote the applicant’s colleagues to grade AST10, with effect from 1 January 2019;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 that there was no legal basis for the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the administration’s approach regarding reclassification from grade AST9 to grade AST10 was illegal.

3. Third plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of the scope of Article 31(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
2.

Second plea in law, contesting the legality of the challenged decision, given that the ‘different active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of the applicant’s objections, which were submitted during the application phase. Thus, the EMA has failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, which in turn renders the challenged decision illegal.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, not solely on the basis of a failure to state adequate reasons, but also on the basis of a manifest contradiction in the reasoning provided because, inter alia, despite the verbal assessment of the applicant’s performance being sufficient for her to be included on the reserve list under all the criteria relied on (‘very strong’), the selection board gave her a lower average mark (‘strong to very strong’) which resulted in her being excluded from the list.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for including the applicant on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya were fulfilled in the applicant’s case. The applicant alleges that the Council has not identified the entity described as Wagner Group, avers that he has no knowledge of an entity known as Wagner Group, that he has not had any links with any such entity and has not been engaged with nor has he supported it.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 September 2020 — Luna Italia v EUIPO — Luna (LUNA SPLENDIDA)

(Case T-571/20)

(2021/C 44/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Luna Italia Srl (Cantu, Italy) (represented by: N. Papakostas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luna AE (Agios Stefanos, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark LUNA SPLENDIDA in colour gold — European Union trade mark No 16 308 108

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2020 in Case R 1895/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— consider the present application admissible;

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Action brought on 5 December 2020 — WIZZ Air Hungary v Commission

(Case T-718/20)

(2021/C 53/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WIZZ Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (WIZZ Air Hungary Zrt.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: E. Vahida, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 24 February 2020 in State aid Case SA.56244 — Rescue aid to Tarom (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

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 that the rescue aid to Tarom does not satisfy the compatibility condition of the European Commission’s Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (2) regarding the need for the rescue aid to contribute to an objective of genuine common interest because the Commission failed to assess the significance of Tarom on the domestic and international air transport markets and the likelihood of substitution of Tarom.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the rescue aid does not satisfy the ‘one time, last time’ compatibility condition of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines because Tarom’s previous restructuring period lasted until 2019, i.e., less than ten years before the European Commission approved new rescue aid to Tarom through its decision of 24 February 2020.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the Applicant’s procedural rights.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2020, C 310, p. 3

(2) Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty, OJ 2014, C 249, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2020 — Nissan Motor v EUIPO — VDL Groep (VDL E-POWER)

(Case T-755/20)

(2021/C 53/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VDL Groep BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark VDL E-POWER — Application for registration No 17 895 702

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2020 in Case R 2914/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the present applicant for annulment;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

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