ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 26/55

Action brought on 8 November 2012 — Planet v Commission

(Case T-489/12)

2013/C 26/111

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Planet AE, a public limited consultancy company (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Declare that the European Commission, by disallowing personnel costs for the applicant’s high ranking staff, infringed the ONTOGOV, FIT and RACWeb contracts and that the personnel costs submitted to the Commission in respect of the abovementioned contracts for the applicant’s high ranking staff, amounting to EUR 547 653,42 are consequently eligible costs and ought not to be repaid by the applicant to the Commission, and

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the Commission’s liability under the following contracts: (a) No 507237 for completion of the project ‘Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, (b) No 027090 for completion of the project ‘Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and (c) No 045101 for completion of the project ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU. Specifically, the applicant claims that, although it performed its contractual obligations fully, properly and very successfully, the Commission, contrary to the above mentioned contracts and the rules governing audit procedure, disallowed the applicant’s personnel costs which relate to its three high ranking staff.

More particularly, the applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action:

First, the applicant maintains that in no way did it infringe its contractual obligations concerning personnel costs, since (a) the personnel costs for the applicant’s three high ranking staff meet all the conditions of eligibility, in accordance with the terms of the contracts at issue, and (b) in no way do the contracts prohibit the participation of high ranking staff in the funded projects.
—

It is submitted in this regard that the Commission’s conduct has given rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the applicant, in so far as the administration’s decision that the grant agreement relating to the ECOLINK + project was to be concluded ‘in accordance with the solution elaborated to the noteworthy findings of a recent audit report’ [sic] and the decision to provide in the subsequent amendment to that agreement that, as regards the Shareholders, it was necessary to use ‘the methodology annexed to the contract and the relative costs are reported in the company’s books’ [sic] show that it may be inferred that the Commission had in fact, by that stage, indicated its acceptance of the methods of calculating costs proposed by META.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/14

Action brought on 19 November 2012 — Front Polisario v Council

(Case T-512/12)

2013/C 55/26

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Front populaire pour la liberation de la saguia-el-hamra et du rio de oro (Front Polisario) (Laâyoune) (represented by: C.E. Hafiz, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested act and, consequently, all implementing acts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant raises five pleas in law in support of its action against (i) Council Decision 2012/497/EU of 8 March 2012 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco concerning reciprocal liberalisation measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, fish and fishery products, the replacement of Protocols 1, 2 and 3 and their Annexes and amendments to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (OJ 2012 L 241, p. 2) and (ii) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 812/2012 of 12 September 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 747/2001 as regards tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and processed agricultural products originating in Morocco (OJ 2012 L 247, p. 7).

The applicant is of the opinion that, as the representative of the Sahrawi people, it is directly and individually affected by those acts.

1. First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the duty to state reasons, when it was particularly necessary to state reasons having regard to the legal environment and, second, infringement of the right to a hearing, since the Front Polisario was not consulted.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the fundamental rights protected by Article 67 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and the principles laid down in the case-law by breaching the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people and by encouraging the policy of annexation followed by the Kingdom of Morocco, an occupying power in the view of the applicant. The applicant also claims infringement of the principle of coherence laid down in Article 7 TFEU by the failure to respect the principle of sovereignty and infringement of the values on which the European Union is based and the principles governing its external action in contravention of Articles 2 TEU, 3(5) TEU, 21 TEU and 205 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of international agreements concluded by the European Union, in particular the Association Agreement concluded between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of a number of norms of international law, including the right to self-determination, the relative effect of the Treaties and the essential provisions of international humanitarian law.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and fact, in that the Commission wrongly concluded that Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (‘DARD’) failed to apply, properly or at all, provisions on sanctions, recoveries of undue payments and intentional non compliance, and that the Commission thus overestimated and/or failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to the EU funds. In particular, the Commission: — wrongly criticised an alleged «systematic» recalculation of payment entitlements by DARD; — wrongly claimed that errors in 2005 could have material affects on the historical element of the entitlement value; — adopted the wrong method of calculation of overpayments; — adopted the wrong approach to penalties, in particular by: — adopting the wrong method of calculating penalties; and — wrongly claiming that a penalty should be imposed for each year in cases where a penalty was applicable in 2005 but not in subsequent claim years in this case in 2007 and 2008 where over-payment resulted from the same error as that penalised in 2005; — adopted the wrong approach to intentional non-compliance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/19

Action brought on 7 December 2012 — IBSolution v OHIM — IBS (IBSolution)

(Case T-533/12)

2013/C 46/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: IBSolution GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Ekey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IBS AB (Solna, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare the action to be well founded;

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2;

— Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2012 in case R 771/2011-2, by granting registration of the trade mark applied for; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IBSolution’, for services in classes 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 8421877

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 38729 of the figurative mark ‘IBS’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/20

Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Ted-Invest v OHIM — Scandia Down (sensi scandia)

(Case T-516/12)

2013/C 32/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ted — Invest EOOD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scandia Down LLC (Weehawken, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 2247/2011-1, for declaring the trademark as invalid for the goods in classes 20 and 24;

— Alternatively if the Court does not uphold the whole appeal, to uphold the appeal and to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal in connection with the goods in class 20.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘sensi scandia’, for goods in classes 16, 20 and 24 — Community trade mark registration No 8596975

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and was based on the Community trade mark registration No 8173312 of the word mark ‘SCANDIA HOME’, for goods and services in classes 20, 24, 25 and 35

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Articles 8(2) and 8(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/22

Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Royalton Overseas/OHIM — SC Romarose Invest (KAISERHOFF)

(Case T-556/12)

2013/C 63/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Royalton Overseas Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: C. Năstase, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Romarose Invest Srl (Bucharest, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and design) as of October 4, 2012 and Communicated on October 22, 2012 in the case file No R 2535/2011-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘KAISERHOFF’, for goods in classes 8 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 9 242 066

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 110 809 of the word mark ‘KAISERHOFF’ for goods in classes 11, 21 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 50, corroborated with Rule 20(7) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76(1) and 42(5) of Council Regulation No 2007/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/23

Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

(Case T-568/12)

2013/C 63/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4;

— reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

— order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘FOCUS extreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 894587

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘FOCUS’ which has been registered under No 2062620, for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/21

Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Yaqub/OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)

(Case T-580/12)

2013/C 79/37

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Jenkins, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Republic of Turkey

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the second board of appeal of the 17 September 2012.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘ATATURK’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 25, 29, 30 and 32 (Community trade mark 4 633 434)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Republic of Turkey

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Articles 7(1)(b) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of the Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/21

Action brought on 26 December 2012 — Ministry of Energy of Iran v Council

(Case T-564/12)

2013/C 55/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ministry of Energy of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2), in so far as those measure apply to the applicant;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that none of the legal criteria for listing the applicants is fulfilled, the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing was fulfilled, and its designation is based on a manifest error of fact.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant in the contested measures.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business, and reputation.

(1) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/21

Action brought on 7 January 2013 — CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange v Commission

(Case T-2/13)

2013/C 79/38

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: A.-L. Lefort des Ylouses and A.-S. Gay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action brought by CFE-CGC France Télécom-Orange admissible;

— rule that the decision is annulled;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant is seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 9403 final of 20 December 2011, declaring compatible with the internal market, under certain conditions, the aid implemented by the French Republic in favour of France Télécom concerning the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom (State aid No C 25/2008 (ex NN 23/2008)). (1)

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law alleging, primarily, infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the contested decision characterises as State aid the reform of the method of financing the pensions of public-service employees working for France Télécom introduced by Law No 96-660 of 26 July 1996. The applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 107(1) TFEU: — by holding that the 1996 Law could be characterised as an economic advantage; — by concluding that the reform was selective in nature, even though the absence of any external comparison prevents any selectivity; — by holding that the 1996 Law is liable to distort competition for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU, even though the payment of an exceptional contribution by France Télécom would have legitimately neutralised the disabling effects of the 1990 Law for France Télécom.

2. Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, errors of law and of assessment by making the compatibility of the 1996 Law with the internal market subject to the conditions set out in Article 2 of the contested decision.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of several fundamental principles of European Union law, namely the principle of equality of arms, the right of interested parties to be heard, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the right to be heard within a reasonable time period.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, the contested decision not being intended to recover State aid incompatible with the internal market, but to impose in the future on France Télécom supplementary burdens which would have the effect of impeding its development on the telecommunications markets.

(1) OJ 2012 L 279, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/20

Action brought on 24 January 2013 — Pedro Group/OHIM — Cortefiel (PEDRO)

(Case T-38/13)

2013/C 101/44

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pedro Group Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: B. Brandreth, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cortefiel, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul partially the Fourth Board of Appeal’s Decision of 26 November 2012 (Case R 0271/2011-4): Annulment of that part of the Decision that annulled part of the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17 December 2010 and rejected the Applicant’s CTM application for certain goods in class 25;

— Order that the respondent pays the applicant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PEDRO’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 7 541 857

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1 252 899 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 35, and 42 and the International registration No 864 740 claimed to have effect in Bulgaria, Spain and Romania for the figurative mark in black and white ‘Pedro del Hierro’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision as far as it rejected the opposition for goods in class 25, rejected the application for these goods and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 71/27

Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Mäurer & Wirtz v OHIM — Sacra (4711 Aqua Mirabilis)

(Case T-25/13)

2013/C 71/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mäurer & Wirtz GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sacra Srl (Venice, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 November 2012 in Case R 1601/2011-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the initial action and of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘4711 Aqua Mirabilis’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 988 181

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sacra Srl

Mark or sign cited in opposition: word mark ‘Aqua Admirabilis’ for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009