ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 20 February 2020 — BSEF v Commission

(Case T-113/20)

(2020/C 129/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009, insofar as it bans halogenated flame retardants;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that in adopting the Contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 1(4) and Article 15(2)(c)(i) of the Ecodesign Directive (1), acted ultra vires and exceeded the limits of its competence, as well as prevented the effet utile of other EU law measures.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by banning the halogenated flame retardants for use in electronic displays through the Contested Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment and failed to take all information into account, breached Article 15(1) of the Ecodesign Directive and failed in its duty to undertake an appropriate impact assessment when banning halogenated flame retardants under the Contested Regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of legal certainty in that the applicant is placed in a position of unacceptable legal uncertainty.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of proportionality in that the ban on halogenated flame retardants exceeds the limits of what is appropriate, is not necessary to achieve the objectives pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the Commission could have had recourse.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation breaches the principle of equal treatment in that the ban on halogenated flame retardants is discriminatory vis-à-vis other categories of products and vis-à-vis other substances.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that in adopting the Contested Regulation, the Commission breached Article 15(1) of the Ecodesign Directive and Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 and 8 of Decision 1999/468/EC (2) and acted ultra vires.

(1) Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products, OJ 2009, L 285, p. 10.

(2) Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, OJ 1999, L 184, p. 23.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 February 2020 — IN v EASME

(Case T-119/20)

(2020/C 191/26)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IN (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the decision of 15 April 2019, made by the Executive Directive of EASME in his capacity as the authority empowered to conclude contracts (‘AECE’), not to renew the applicant’s contract beyond the term thereof (30 April 2019);

— annul the applicant’s appraisal for the year 2018, which was finalised on 3 June 2019;

— if necessary, annul the decision of the AECE of 15 November 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the damage suffered;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, as well as infringement of the decision of 4 February 2019, ‘EASME Policy for Management of Employment Contracts’.

2. Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

3. Third plea, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

4. Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and legality, infringement of the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time, and infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.

5. Fifth plea, concerning the application for annulment of the appraisal, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

The applicant takes the view, moreover, that the illegalities set out in the pleas for annulment constitute the same number of failures on the part of the defendant. Consequently, he seeks compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decisions.
Action brought on 16 March 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-151/20)

(2020/C 175/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, Agents)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 40 482 255 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 17 March 2015 for no legal reason;

— order the European Union, represented by the European Commission, to restore to the Czech Republic the sum of CZK 2 698 817 on the basis of unjust enrichment, that sum having been paid, conditionally, into the Commission’s account on 22 December 2016 for no legal reason;

— order the European Union, represented by the 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.

The applicant claims that the amount in dispute corresponds to unrecovered customs duty on the import of flint lighters from Laos amounting to CZK 53 976 340 minus collection costs. On 17 March 2015, the sum of CZK 40 482 255 (75 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was conditionally paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s formal notice dated 21 January 2015. On 22 December 2016, the sum of CZK 2 698 817 (5 % of the unrecovered customs duty) was paid into the Commission’s account, following the Commission’s request for payment of the difference corresponding to the increase in the contribution paid to the Union to 80 %.

There was no legal reason for the payment of that sum into the Commission’s account, since the customs duty concerned could not be collected for reasons which cannot be attributed to the Czech Republic. Under Article 17(2)(b) of Regulation No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 (1) the Czech Republic was therefore released from the obligation to place the disputed sum at the Commission’s disposal.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Marina Yachting Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (MARINA YACHTING)

(Case T-169/20)

(2020/C 191/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Company Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industries Sportswear Company SRL (Venice, 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 word mark MARINA YACHTING — European Union trade mark No 11 111 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation of register entry

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Joined Cases R 252/2019-2 and R 253/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 103(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 27 March 2020 — 3M Belgium v ECHA

(Case T-160/20)

(2020/C 201/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: 3M Belgium (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Montfort and T. Delille, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul ECHA Decision of 16 January 2020 (ECHA/01/2020) regarding the ‘Inclusion of substances of very high concern in the Candidate List for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV’ of the REACH Regulation (1), as regards the listing of ‘Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (“PFBS”) and its salts’;

— 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 that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the Article 57(f) of the REACH Regulation requirements and that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment, since it has not demonstrated that the Substance is causing probable serious effects to human health and the environment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty, including that of foreseeability, given that the applicant was not placed in a position to identify or ascertain in any manner the definition, criteria or factors used by ECHA to support its decision.

(1) 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 L 396, 2006, p. 1
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 April 2020 — Target Brands v EUIPO — The a.r.t. company b&s (art class)

(Case T-221/20)

(2020/C 201/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Brands Inc. (Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The a.r.t. company b&s, SA (Quel, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark art class — Application for registration No 16 888 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 in Case R 1596/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition decision in respect of all of the remaining contested goods;

— alternatively, remit the matter to the EUIPO for re-consideration;

— order to pay its costs incurred in connection with this appeal, the appeal before the Board and the Opposition.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 March 2020 — IZ v Parliament

(Case T-155/20)

(2020/C 201/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: IZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

Principally:

— annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs;

In the alternative:

— find that the decision dissolving the political group ENF was unlawful;

— accordingly, annul the decision of 4 July 2019 dismissing the applicant;

— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 20 000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies, principally, on five pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-154/20, IY v Parliament.

In the alternative, the applicant pleads the unlawfulness of the decision dissolving the European political group ENF. The applicant argues that since the dissolution decision was unlawful, as it was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers, the dismissal decision — which was based exclusively on that dissolution — is itself, therefore, unlawful and must be annulled.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 April 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-233/20)

(2020/C 215/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, 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 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 326 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2020 in Case R 1544/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the EU trade mark No 12 326 609, also for classes 11 and 40;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)

(Case T-261/20)

(2020/C 222/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 485

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1547/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the International trademark registration No 1 151 485, also for classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 20 May 2020 — Molina Fernández v SRB

(Case T-304/20)

(2020/C 247/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Laura Molina Fernández (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Rodríguez Bajón and A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Español S.A. have been effected.

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

1. In the first place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report was not drawn up by a genuinely independent expert, as required by Article 20(16) to (18) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

2. In the second place, the applicant submits that the Valuation 3 Report is unlawful because the method of analysis used by Deloitte is incorrect, which led Deloitte to reach equally incorrect conclusions with seriously prejudicial effects on the applicant, who has unduly and unfairly been deprived of the compensation to which she is entitled.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Raisioaqua (Vital like nature)

(Case T-351/20)

(2020/C 247/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Deutschland) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Raisioaqua Oy (Raisio, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘Vital like nature’ — Application No 17 165 002

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 1279/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, infringement of Regulation (EU) No 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 EU 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) and, in particular, Article 17 thereof. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decisions infringe the fundamental right of access to personal data.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 June 2020. — 1031023 B.C. v EUIPO — Bodegas San Valero (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke)

(Case T-366/20)

(2020/C 255/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: 1031023 B.C. Ltd (Richmond, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: M. González Gordon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bodegas San Valero, S. Coop. (Cariñena, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of a round element similar to a brushstroke) — Application for registration No 17 890 405

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2142/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— admit the application and the documents attached thereto and consider the appeal to have been lodged in due time and form against the contested decision and, after completing the appropriate procedural steps, give judgment upholding the applicant’s claims and granting EU trade mark application No 17 890 405.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission

(Case T-314/20)

(2020/C 247/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hameln, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rudolf Böckenholt (LLOYD’S)

(Case T-400/20)

(2020/C 262/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rudolf Böckenholt GmbH & Co. KG (Ostbevern, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark LLOYD’S — EU trade mark No 2 957 132

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 1119/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, inasmuch as, by dismissing the appeal brought by El Corte Inglés, S.A., it upholds the decision of the Cancellation Division partially upholding application No 18 381 C for a declaration of invalidity, and upholds the partial invalidity of EU trade mark No 2 957 132 LLOYD’S (figurative) for ‘goods made of these materials (leather and imitation of leather) and not included in other classes, excluding leather used for making footwear’ in Class 18;

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

— Contradiction with the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 562/2006-1 of 23 October 2009.