ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

declare null and void and in any event annul: (i) the letter Ref. SM/FUN S/2622874 of 28 July 2014 (sent by Jerzy Plewa, European Commission Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, to Felice Assenza, Italian Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Director-General for International Policy and the European Union), of which the applicant became aware as a result of access to documents on 19 November 2014, in so far as that letter rejects Italy’s application regarding Support Measures 6 to 9 requested under Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, particularly those relating to abattoirs for the killing of animals pursuant to health measures designed to prevent the spread of avian flu and those relating to the resulting damage to businesses; (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1071/2014 of 10 October 2014 on exceptional support measures for the eggs and poultrymeat sectors in Italy, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 11 October 2014, in so far as it excludes from the support measures adopted under Article 220 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 abattoirs for the killing of animals pursuant to health measures designed to prevent the spread of avian flu and the resulting damage to businesses;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/28

Action brought on 30 December 2014 — GHC v Commission

(Case T-847/14)

(2015/C 056/39)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GHC Gerling, Holz & Co. Handels GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Lang, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission implementing decision of 31 October 2014 C(2014) 7920 and the quota assigned to the applicant for 2015 for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market, in so far as they establish too low a reference value for the applicant and assign to the applicant too low a quota for 2015;

— 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: Infringement of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 (1) — By this plea the applicant submits that the defendant established too low a reference value for the applicant and assigned to it too low a quota for 2015. The applicant complains that, in its calculation, the Commission took into account the development of stocks in the reference years. — The applicant submits that the wording, history, scheme and spirit and purpose of Regulation No 517/2014 do not justify the taking into account of the development of stocks. — Within the context of this plea, the applicant asserts that the annual development of stocks is not suitable for determining the quantity actually placed on the market for importers and exporters which are not producers, and distorts that determination to the applicant’s detriment.

2. Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of equality stemming from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — By this plea the applicant submits that, due to the taking into account of the annual development of stocks in the reference years, it is unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis importers which sold their stocks over the course of the reference year and did not store them beyond the end of the year. — In addition, the applicant as an importer is also unfairly disadvantaged vis-à-vis producers, since the taking into account of the development of the annual stocks is suitable for producers to accurately reflect the quantity actually placed on the market, whereas it is distorted to the applicant’s detriment.

3. Third plea in law: Infringement of the obligation to state reasons stemming from Article 296 TFEU — By this plea the applicant submits in particular that the contested decision does not comply with the requirements flowing from the obligation to state reasons; in particular it is not evident how the tonnes of CO2 equivalent indicated for the applicant is composed.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195).
Appeal brought on 31 December 2014 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-848/14 P)

(2015/C 073/56)

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, delete the reference to Article 270 TFEU, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, and set aside paragraphs 16 to 19, 22, 37, 41, 42, 45, 47 to 49, 51, and 53 to 66 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following the adoption of the requested measures of inquiry, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of inquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-55/08 RENV De Nicola v EIB.

The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal.

1. Failure to give a ruling on the request for deletion of the EIB’s observations and documents;

2. Failure to give a ruling on the exclusion of the president of the formation of the court;

3. Incorrect interpretation of the judgment in Case T-37/10 P;

4. Failure to provide a statement of reasons or provision of an incorrect statement of reasons with regard to the psychological harassment; the appellant asks the Court to order the defendant to cease that harassment;

5. Need for the Appeals Committee to give its ruling on the merits as regards the 2006 Staff Report;
2.

Second plea in law, regarding ‘Costs of external assistance’, alleging infringement and incorrect application of: (i) Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008; (ii) Article 16 of Directive 2004/18/EC; (iii) Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 concerning the establishment of a Community framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries sector and support for scientific advice regarding the Common Fisheries Policy; and (iv) the principle of legitimate expectations. — The applicant argues, in that regard, that the complaint regarding the lack of recourse to a selection procedure for allocating the assignment to the company Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is in breach of Article 16(f) of Directive 2004/18/EC, which excludes the services in question from the scope of the rules on public procurement. In any event, IREPA carried out a pro-competitive procedure by extending invitations to five operators in accordance with the principles underlying public tendering procedures. — It also maintains that the objection that there is a lack of data regarding the controls carried out in relation to the service provided by Studio Nouvelle S.r.l. is invalid as it infringes Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008, which does not identify any specific rules relating to controls, such rules being instead indicated in the National Plan which was approved by the European Commission, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding the validity of those rules. — According to the applicant, the contested inclusion, in the request for repayment, of expenses which the State had not yet actually incurred is invalid, as the sums reported had been imputed to the 2009/2010 National Programme in accordance with Articles 7, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1078/2008 and the Commission had approved that type of reporting in respect of the documentation relating to the 2008 programme, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation regarding payment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/29

Action brought on 16 September 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)

(Case T-666/14)

(2015/C 127/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States of America) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GREEN BEANS’ — Application for registration No 11 410 801

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1530/2013-1

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 89/31

Action brought on 16 December 2014 — Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia v Commission

(Case T-819/14)

(2015/C 089/37)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Mezhdunaroden tsentar za izsledvane na maltsinstvata i kulturnite vzaimodeystvia (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Hristo Hristev, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission act contained in its letter under reference number ARES (2014) 2848632 01/09/2014 and in debit note No 3241409948 attached to that letter under reference number ARES (2014) 2848632 01/09/2014;

— reimburse the applicant the costs it incurred during the proceedings;

— in the alternative, in the event that the action for annulment is dismissed, order the defendant, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, in so far as the defendant deliberately ensured that the applicant would have to bear those costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s action is admissible, in the light of the fact that the contested act must be regarded as an adopted act, in the context of the exercise of public powers, in relation to a third party who thereby acquires an interest in challenging the finding that it committed an infringement, and that finding constitutes a necessary prerequisite for the adoption of measures which adversely affect it.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration, in so far as, first, it failed to carry out an examination of the facts of the dispute which was complete in all respects, objective and consistent, or an examination of the legal arguments put forward by the person concerned and in so far as, secondly, it failed to provide reasons for its act.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty in so far as the operative part of the act is unclear, in particular concerning the nature of that act.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as, in the absence of comments from the Commission regarding earlier projects, whether concerning their implementation or the treatment of financial documents, the applicant acquired a legitimate expectation that its documentation was correctly treated and that it was not necessary to provide corrections, whether to ongoing or future projects, since its legitimate expectation was created by a reliable source, namely the European Commission.
Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-10/15 P)

(2015/C 073/60)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: C. 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: reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, along with paragraphs 5, 7, 14, 16 to 21, 24 to 27, 29, 32, 35 to 37, 39 to 43, 46 to 55, 57 to 59, 62 to 66, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 87 to 91, 93, 95 to 100, 103, 106, 107, 109 to 112, 117, 120, 124, 142, 144, 145, 148 to 153, 161 to 170, 175 to 182 and 184 to 193 of 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; make any measure of enquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal:

1. The contested measures contain no statement of reasons.

2. Regarding the annulment of the measures related to the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision and of the measures used by the Committee of Inquiry, the appellant claims that that decision is inadmissible, given that the application specifically concerned all the unnecessary measures used by the Committee of Inquiry.

3. Regarding the request for a declaration of mobbing, the appellant contests the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on the ground of specious reasoning, in so far as the declaration that a breach of contract occurred to his detriment is certainly not an injunction issued against the EIB; nor is it even a declaration of principle.

4. Regarding the request for an order to cease mobbing, the appellant asserts that the alleged prohibition on injunctions cannot be absolute, but must necessarily be lifted in the event of conduct which interferes with human dignity and fundamental rights.

5. Regarding the request for compensation for the harm resulting from mobbing, the appellant emphasises the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal revokes his submissions to the Committee of Inquiry and observes that the EIB is not required to do anything, because there is no ruling giving an order to that effect and, since the Committee’s decision is not mandatory, it is not binding; nor is it even a procedural requirement.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Jääkiekon SM-liiga v OHIM (Liiga)

(Case T-54/15)

(2015/C 107/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Jääkiekon SM-liiga Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, 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 containing the word element ‘Liiga’ — Application for registration No 12 056 792

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2014 in Case R 576/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and allow the trade mark to proceed to publication;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/43

Action brought on 28 January 2015 — CRM v Commission

(Case T-43/15)

(2015/C 089/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 4 November 2014 (Volume L 316);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the registration of the protected geographical indication ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ with regard to the fact that the reputation enjoyed by handcrafted Piadina has been extended to cover Piadina produced on an industrial scale.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(f)(ii) and Article 8(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1). — The applicant claims, in that regard, that there is no evidence in the case which justifies the link to the geographical origin, and — that the reputation enjoyed by handcrafted Piadina has been extended to cover Piadina produced on an industrial scale.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation. — In that regard, the applicant argues that there has been a manifest error of assessment of the application for registration with regard to compliance with the requirements for publishing the application for registration of a geographical indication in relation to Piadina Romagnola, and — that there has been a failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation, owing to a failure to assess the annulment, by the judicial authorities of a Member State, of the national rules on which the contested regulation is based. — The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/41

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Olympus Medical Systems v OHIM (3D)

(Case T-79/15)

(2015/C 118/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Olympus Medical Systems Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and C. Opatz, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the element ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 12 598 538

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1708/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging errors of law and errors of assessment. — By the first part of the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the financing of the Hinterland Facilities did not involve State aid since the measures concerned were neither liable to distort competition nor to affect trade between Member States. — By the second part, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law with regard to the unconditional character of the State guarantees and the legally enforceable right of the Consortium to obtain State guaranteed funding, as well as regarding the Commission’s assessment of the number of State guarantees. — By the third and fourth parts, the applicants submit that the Commission erred in law by concluding that the Swedish guarantee measures constitute an aid scheme and existing aid. — By the fifth part, the applicants submit that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that the State guarantees are limited to the financing of the Fixed Link. — By the sixth part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, in that the Commission did not have sufficient grounds to find the aid measures in question compatible with the internal market. — Under the sixth part, the Applicants also submit that the Commission erred in law by not assessing the cumulative effect of all the different aid measures directly and indirectly granted to the Consortium. — By the seventh part of the first plea in law, the applicants allege incorrect application of the principle of legitimate expectations.
(a)

The communications of the European Commission during the evaluation process of the project incorrectly identified the project coordinator, and were addressed to a person who was not the legal representative, contact person or coordinator of the project in question. That is particularly significant in the present case, since the person concerned had nothing to do with AEDEC and formed part of LATIN PLAN as a member of the Finnish team. It is clear that the European Commission, believing that the person in question coordinated the LATIN PLAN project as part of AEDEC and at the same time formed part of the Finnish team, considered that he did not merit the financial contribution, on the basis of the ‘principle of non-cumulative award’, which applies to the grant of funding in EU law, and according to which no action may give rise to more than one grant from the EU budget to the same beneficiary. Each partner of the LATIN PLAN team requested a budget. If the financial contribution had finally been awarded to the team, according to the Commission’s erroneous perception, the person in question would have received funding as a member of the AEDEC and as a member of the Finnish team.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/35

Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

(Case T-129/15)

(2015/C 155/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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 containing the word elements ‘WAVE 2 PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 117

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1857/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently — annul the contested decision; — order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/61

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Red Bull v OHIM — Optimum Mark (Representation of the colours blue and silver)

(Case T-101/15)

(2015/C 138/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimum Mark (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Representation of the colours blue and silver — Community trade mark registration No 2 5 34 774

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 2037/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 4, 7(1)(a) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;