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

Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)

(Case T-512/20)

(2020/C 378/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 294/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Plea in law
Action brought on 8 September 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-554/20)

(2020/C 399/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the explicit decision of the European Commission of 21 July 2020 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/2083 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1);

— join the current procedure with the procedure registered under case number T-371/20;

— order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

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 contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2), since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when the information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision cannot be based on the protection of the privacy and the integrity of the individual, since Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 provides that ‘If only parts of the requested document are covered by any of the exceptions, the remaining parts of the document shall be released’.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
—

accordingly, principally, order the European Union represented by the European Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 100 000 corresponding to the agreed contractual damages or, otherwise, in the alternative, to pay any other sum to be fixed ex aequo et bono representing compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the publications complained of and, in particular, of the infringement of the two applicant companies’ right to their image; that sum is to be paid jointly and severally to the simplified joint-stock company (‘société par actions simplifiée’), EGIS Bâtiment International SAS, and to the limited liability company, INCA Ingénieurs Conseils Associés SARL, since both applicants are members of the consortium EGIS Bâtiment International — Inca Ingénieurs Conseils Associés, represented by the two applicants, together with the contractual interest or, otherwise, the statutory interest in force as from 27 June 2019, date of the publication of the articles or, otherwise, as from 16 July 2019, date of the first letter before action or, otherwise, as from the present application;
Action brought on 5 October 2020 — Les Mousquetaires and ITM Entreprises v Commission

(Case T-625/20)

(2020/C 433/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Les Mousquetaires (Paris, France), ITM Entreprises (Paris) (represented by: N. Jalabert-Doury and K. Mebarek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the decision dated 23 July 2020 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case AT.40466 — Alliance Casino and Intermarché);

— Order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, of Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 and 102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) and a lack of legal basis, in that the contested decision requires the applicants to identify meetings and to resubmit documents already dealt with by the Commission and since invalidated by the General Court of the European Union.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the right to be heard of the applicant, as well as a breach of the duty to state reasons and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The applicant argues that its right to be heard has been compromised because he was not provided with the relevant methodology to assess the presence of dumping and could not comment on such methodology. The applicant also argues that the challenged Regulation is flawed in that it contains an incomplete motivation in that there is no clear explanation of the methodology uses to assess dumping as well as of why and how the Commission considered reliable evidence submitted by the anti-dumping complainant which at first sight is clearly unreliable.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment of the facts of the case, and breached Article 8 of 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, and Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union, and in particular paragraphs 9 thereof, when it considered that the Applicant breached the terms of the undertaking agreed between the Commission and the CCCME on behalf of inter alia the Applicant. The Applicant did not breach its commitments made under the undertaking when it issued commercial invoices with a revised price in accordance with the variable duty MIP for imports that were released for free circulation after the entry into force of the Regulation repealing the undertaking and introducing the variable duty MIP i.e., after 1 October 2017.
Action brought on 27 October 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-649/20)

(2020/C 433/80)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 168 062,23 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632420 ‘FIMAC, FAST impact cross-analysis methodology for Composite leading edge Structures’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, plus interest at the rate of 3,5 % applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, as from 13 July 2019 until the date of actual payment;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant has failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued, on 12 July 2019, a debit note for the amount of EUR 168 062,23 already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. Pursuant to Italian law, the defendant is liable for Alpha Consulting Service Srl’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations since it took over the role of shareholder, liquidator and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by the company after the debit note was issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Freshly Cosmetics v EUIPO — Misiego Blázquez (IDENTY BEAUTY)

(Case T-688/20)

(2021/C 19/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Freshly Cosmetics, SL (Reus, Spain) (represented by: P. Roiger Bellostes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francisco Misiego Blázquez (Madrid, 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 European Union figurative mark IDENTY BEAUTY — Application for registration No 17 913 910

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 September 2020 in Case R 205/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision and grant the registration of European Union trade mark No 17 913 910 IDENTY BEAUTY in respect of all the goods and services in Class 3;

— order the proprietor of the earlier mark 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 13 November 2020 — Ryanair and Laudamotion v Commission

(Case T-677/20)

(2021/C 9/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) and Laudamotion GmbH (Schwechat, Austria) (represented by: E. Vahida, F. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 6 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57539 (2020/N) — Austria — COVID-19 — Aid to Austrian Airlines (1); and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

The applicants have also requested that their action be determined under the expedited procedure as referred to in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to review possible aid to or from Lufthansa.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU. The liberalisation of air transport has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Austria to reserve the aid to Austrian Airlines, the European Commission ignored the damage caused to such pan-European airlines by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed manifest errors of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 crisis, particularly by considering that all the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to AUA was the direct effect of travel restrictions and not verifying whether Austrian Airlines had mitigated all the avoidable costs.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicants’ procedural rights.

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

(1) European Commission’s decision (EU) of 6 July 2020 on State Aid SA.57539 (2020/N) — Austria — COVID-19 — Aid to Austrian Airlines (OJ 2020 C 346, p. 2)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 November 2020 — Beelow v EUIPO (made of wood)

(Case T-702/20)

(2021/C 28/92)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Timo Beelow (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark made of wood — Application for registration No 18 061 410

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2020 in Case R 108/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by several manifest errors of assessment and ignores that the applicant has good cause to apply for an extension. The applicant further alleges that in light of its legal consequences and the availability of several less onerous means, the Contested Decision infringes the principle of proportionality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Asian Gear v EUIPO — Multimox (Scooter)

(Case T-685/20)

(2021/C 35/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Asian Gear BV (Pijnacker, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Gravendeel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multimox Holding BV (Rijen, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 607 155-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2020 in Case R 1042/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or vary the contested decision, so that Community design No 607 155-0002 is declared invalid;

— in the alternative, confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 30 April 2018 and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs to the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2020 — Pluscard Service v EUIPO (PLUSCARD)

(Case T-669/20)

(2021/C 28/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pluscard Service-Gesellschaft für Kreditkarten-Processing mbH (Saarbrücken, Germany) (represented by: M. Dury, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark PLUSCARD — Application for registration No 1 494 424

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2020 in Case R 638/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that:

— the reasons given by EUIPO and the conclusions drawn by EUIPO shall be revisited;

— the registration of the sign PLUSCARD should therefore be granted as applied for, for all classes, including classes applied for;

— furthermore, due to the distinctive language barriers complicating the resolution of this case, the summoning of oral proceedings is requested and encouraged.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its communication Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and committed a manifest error of assessment by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the Latvian economy, that airBaltic is eligible to aid, and that the conditions regarding distortions to competition, the State’s exit and restructuring were satisfied, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’), and by finding that airBaltic had no significant market power.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)

(Case T-732/20)

(2021/C 44/81)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CRYSTAL — EU trade mark No 8 372 591

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 in Case R 1056/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 8 372 591 be re-established in accordance with his application;

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

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principles of equal treatment and transparency by failing to disqualify the winning bidder for not meeting a number of mandatory requirements included in the Technical Specifications. Specifically, the defendant did not disqualify the winning bidder, despite the fact that it failed to meet the mandatory requirement of a fixed price proposal by including in its tender a mutual exchange rate clause, and by failing to provide a fixed price for the memory components. Furthermore, the defendant breached these same principles by not disqualifying the winning bidder for failing to include in its bid other requirements listed in the Technical Specifications.
Action brought on 23 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-767/20)

(2021/C 53/83)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 56 111,31 in relation to Grant Agreement No 271 874 WISMOA under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 23 May 2019 until the date of actual payment;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant failed to fulfil his contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued two debit notes for a total amount of EUR 56 111,31, already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever in the present case as to the facts giving rise to the obligations incumbent on the defendant as shareholder and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by that company after the debit notes were issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.
1.

First plea in law, based on the validity of the application pursuant to the arbitration clause of grant contract No Q5RS-2000-31334, which provides in Article 5 that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (now ‘General Court of the European Union’) and, in case of appeal, the Court of Justice of the European Communities (now ‘Court of Justice of the European Union’) have sole jurisdiction to hear any dispute between the Community (now ‘European Union’), on the one hand, and the other parties to the contract, on the other hand, as regards the validity, application or any interpretation of that contract.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging the lack of a proper legal basis and breach of the principle of the legality of sanctions and of the principle of the application of the most lenient criminal law. The applicant considers that, according to Article 103 of the 2002 Financial Regulation, only the contracting party, i.e. the company of which he is the manager, may be subject to recovery proceedings. In so doing, the defendant also violated the principle of the application of the most lenient ‘criminal’ law or even the principle of the legality of sanctions, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter, by seeking to apply a stricter legal obligation than that provided for in the 2002 Financial Regulation. Furthermore, the applicant submits that he is not an economic operator, that he did not obtain any advantage from the alleged illegalities, was not the recipient of any payment from the contracting authority and certainly never received an advantage equivalent to the full value of the two contracts in question;