ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 7 May 2022 — Aziz v Commission

(Case T-266/22)

(2022/C 359/93)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ahmad Aziz (Pieta, Malta) (represented by: L. Cuschieri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision number Ares(2022)3227480 of 26 April 2021 of the European Commission, not to rectify personal data of the applicant pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

— declare that there is a breach of Article 50 of the EU Charter for Fundamental Rights when authorities started two parallel criminal and civil proceedings against the applicant, on submitting his own personal data, with same alleged facts, when the applicant is already acquitted from Pakistani trial court with same alleged facts;

— declare that there is a breach of Article 17 for non-provision of data when the European Commission processed the applicant’s personal data. The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the European Commission’s decision number Ares(2022)2457760 dated 1 April 2022 for non-provision of data in term of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 in failing to rectify the applicant’s personal data.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European commission infringed Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 in not providing the applicant with his personal data.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission infringed the principle of presumption of openness and disclosure in failing to give the applicant access to his personal data, when parallel criminal and civil proceedings are ongoing against him. The applicant had the right to be provided with his personal data in ongoing parallel criminal and civil proceedings.

(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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 July 2022 — Mocom Compounds v EUIPO — Centemia Conseils (Near-to-Prime)

(Case T-472/22)

(2022/C 359/113)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mocom Compounds GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bornholdt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Centemia Conseils (Angevillers, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Near-to-Prime’ — Application No 16 448 524

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 May 2022 in Case R 2178/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— amend the contested decision to the effect that Decision No 47 561 C of the Invalidity Division of 12 November 2021 is annulled and the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 16 448 524 is dismissed;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-469/22)

(2022/C 359/111)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement, nr. 20948 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising: — EUR 28 777 508,71, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 27 388 963,40, interest of EUR 116 091,27 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 1 272 454,04. — further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any given relevant period) of (i) the relevant interbank rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the applicant (subrogated to the European Investment Bank’s claims).
Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-397/22)

(2022/C 380/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
—

breach of the principle of impartiality, of the principle of equality in the appraisal procedure to be followed in respect of the candidates proposed by the Supreme Council of the Judiciary, of the essential procedural requirements under Articles 1 to 3 of Decision No 013/2020 of the College laying down rules on the procedure for the appointment of European Delegated Prosecutors, of the obligation to provide a record of the interview and of the right to be heard.
Action brought on 30 August 2022 — QT v EIB

(Case T-529/22)

(2022/C 389/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded; as a consequence,

— annul the decision of 28 September 2021 for the recovery of an amount of EUR 61 186,61 and the decision of 20 May 2022 dismissing the appeal through official channels by the applicant;

— order the EIB to reimburse the amounts recovered, which amounts must be increased with default interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank plus two points;

— order the EIB to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of 28 September 2021 for the recovery of an amount of EUR 61 186,61 wrongly paid towards education allowances, dependent child allowances and related benefits, for the period from July 2014 to June 2017, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a flaw due to the lack of competence of the author of the act.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of the five-year limitation period under Article 16.3 of the administrative provisions applicable to EIB Staff (‘the Staff Rules’).

3. Third plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 16 of the Staff Rules whereby, as well as the five-year limitation period, the conditions for recovery are not fulfilled.
1.

First plea in law, alleging irregularity in the procedure followed by the Committee, infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).
1.

First plea in law, alleging the Appeal Panel erred in finding, in the contested decision, that the SRB correctly interpreted and applied Article 12h of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 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 255, p 1) and that it remained within the limits of its discretion.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council

(Case T-607/22)

(2022/C 432/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Conclusions

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul: Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 (1) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn; Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 (2) in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn; Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3) Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4)

— in the alternative, annul: Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 in relation to Mr Kozitsyn; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 in so far as concerns Mr Kozitsyn; Article 1(2)(g) of Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; Article 1(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) No 2022/330 of 25 February 2022;

— and in any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1272 of 21 July 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 219).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1270 of 21 July 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 193, p. 133).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law, in so far as the criterion relating to ‘activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’ has been interpreted and applied correctly in the implementation of MFZ Regime III. The applicant claims that the Commission erred in its interpretation of the criterion ‘profits resulting from activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira’. The profits of companies registered in the MFZ which may be eligible for a tax benefit are not limited to those resulting from activities that are subject to additional costs associated with remoteness, that is to say activities performed solely in the geographic territory of the Autonomous Region of Madeira. In view of the aims and context of MFZ Regime III, the correct interpretation of that criterion allows those activities associated with ZFM licensed companies, which had their decision-making centre there, to be regarded as activities effectively and materially performed in Madeira, irrespective of whether they are engaged in international activities.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2022 — SB v EEAS

(Case T-621/22)

(2022/C 441/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: SB (represented by: L. Burguin, T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find that the EEAS is liable;

— order the EEAS to pay the sum of EUR 80 000 in respect of non-material harm and EUR 720 000 in respect of material harm;

— order the defence to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the two decisions of 10 November 2021 rejecting the applicant’s applications for the positions of Head of Delegation of the European Union, first, in [confidential] (1) and, second, in [confidential], the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of legitimate expectations.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of equal treatment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the existence of a misuse of powers.

(1) Confidential information omitted.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 September 2022 — Polaroid IP v EUIPO — Klimeck (Representation of a square in a rectangle)

(Case T-591/22)

(2022/C 441/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Polaroid IP BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thomas Klimeck (Kevelaer, Germany)

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 a square in a rectangle) — European Union trade mark No 16 217 267

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2022 in Case R 1646/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the case to the Cancellation Division;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of this Application and order Klimeck to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 October 2022 — VF International v EUIPO — Super Brand Licencing (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION)

(Case T-639/22)

(2022/C 463/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: Y. Bizollon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Super Brand Licencing SAS (Villeurbanne, France)

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: EU figurative mark GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION in the colours black, taupe, red, white — EU trade mark No 9 860 834

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 August 2022 in Case R 124/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 October 2022 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-643/22)

(2022/C 451/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov-on-Don, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1355 of 4 August 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1354 of 4 August 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant. The applicant also seeks his costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted at face value, without any attempted verification whatsoever, unsubstantiated and largely historic assertions, allegations and even opinions from various media reports of questionable reliability. The Council presented these claims and accusations as fact, despite the many inaccuracies and inconsistencies identified by the applicant in his observations. The Council should have undertaken further investigation and conducted a proper examination of the sufficiency, credibility, and reliability of the material upon which it relied, but failed to do so. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2022 August Sanctions and they should accordingly be annulled.

(1) OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 4.

(2) OJ 2022, L 204 I, p. 1.
1.

In relation to ‘forestry activities’ the applicants rely on six pleas in law, alleging that the contested Decision is vitiated by: — errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in relation to the criteria for determining when an activity makes a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation; — errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in relation to the exemption from climate benefit analysis for forest holdings under 13 ha in the criteria for substantial contribution to climate change mitigation; — errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in relation to the criteria for determining when an activity does no significant harm to climate change adaptation; — errors of law in relation to the criteria for determining when an activity does no significant harm to the transition to a circular economy; — errors of law in relation to the criteria for determining when an activity does no significant harm to climate change mitigation; — errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in relation to the criteria for determining when an activity does no significant harm to the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems.
Action brought on 14 October 2022 — SE and SF v Council

(Case T-644/22)

(2022/C 472/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: SE, SF (represented by: S. Bonifassi, E. Fedorova, T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and L. Burguin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 (1) in so far as it amends Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) 269/2014 (2) and creates a reporting obligation at the expense of the applicants;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Council exceeded its competence concerning restrictive measures. According to the applicants, the reporting obligation is not a necessary measure to give effect to Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3) and that provision, therefore, encroaches on the competences of Member States to implement the restrictive measures. Furthermore, the Council lacked the competence to create and define, by itself, an infringement to a reporting obligation that does not fall within the scope of a restrictive measure, and to harmonise the penalties for that infringement.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of power, since the reporting obligation imposed within a strict time limit, coupled with the obligation on Member States to penalise the failure to comply with that obligation by a sanction regime consisting, in particular, of confiscations, was adopted with the exclusive or main purpose of achieving an end other than that stated.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, on the ground that the reporting obligation was not necessary and that the consequences of a failure to comply with the reporting obligation are, therefore, disproportionate with regard to the objective pursued by the regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty, on the ground that Article 1(4) of the contested regulation is neither clear nor precise and that its application is not foreseeable.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1273 of 21 July 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 194, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 78, p. 6).

(3) Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine(OJ 2014 L 78, p. 16).
—

Annul — in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts — the Binding Decision 2/2022 of the EDPB of 28 July 2022, which determined that Meta Ireland infringed certain requirements set out in Regulation 2016/679 (GDPR); and
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Lycatelcom v Commission

(Case T-685/22)

(2023/C 24/66)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Lycatelcom, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.