ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that the Commission infringed Articles 106 and 107 TFEU and Protocol 26 TFEU since the measures disputed by the decision do not constitute State aid as there is no economic activity; at issue, rather, is the activity of public authorities in their capacity as administrations. Still more subsidiarily, the applicant submits that the contested decision incorrectly concludes that the measures at issue were not related to the provision of a public service of general interest (PSGI) and, consequently, incorrectly assesses the applicability of the Altmark case-law and that of Decision PSGI 2005/842/EEC (on the application of 86(2) EC), which could have led to a finding of the absence of aid or of the compatibility of any aid found to have been granted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/28

Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission

(Case T-29/15)

(2015/C 081/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller and C. Farrell, Solicitors, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the amended Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union adopted on 16 December 2014; and

— order the European Commission to pay for the costs.

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 the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant did not comply with the requirements provided in Article 53(d)(l) of the 2002 Financial Regulation (1) and Article 60(2) of the 2012 Financial Regulation (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that there were no changes to the standards applied in the applicant’s account, audit, internal control or procurement systems that would justify a decision by the European Commission to conclude that the applicant could no longer be entrusted with budget implementation tasks.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to respect principles of good administration and sound financial management.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligations related to the principle of transparency.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the applicant with a route to redress.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that Commission failed in its duty to give reasons.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested measures constitutes a breach of the applicant’s right to legitimate expectation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, of 25 June 2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).

(2) Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 October 2012, on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/42

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)

(Case T-84/15)

(2015/C 118/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Thea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Sebacur’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 54 194

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 2403/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the decision of the Opposition Division and it ordered the applicant to reimburse EUR 550 to Sebapharma GmbH & Co.;

— Order the losing party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 January 2015 — Franmax v OHIM — Ehrmann (Dino)

(Case T-21/15)

(2015/C 107/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Franmax UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: E. Saukalas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu (Oberschönegg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Dino’ — Application for registration No 10 809 481

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2012/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/38

Action brought on 26 February 2015 — Mozzetti v OHIM — di Lelio (ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma)

(Case T-97/15)

(2015/C 127/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Mozzetti (Rome, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ines di Lelio (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ALFREDO’S GALLERY alla Scrofa Roma’ — Community trade mark No 3 108 289

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 in Case R 656/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 insofar as it relates to Rule 20(2) of that regulation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/35

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

(Case T-57/15)

(2015/C 118/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H.-J. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision C(2013) 7285 final — Croatia — Alleged aid to Jadrolinija of 15 October 2014;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

— refer the case back to the European Commission for further investigation and renewed decision; and

— take such other or further actions as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid because the wrong test was applied to establish whether State resources were involved.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing Article 107 TFEU in finding that the disputed measure does not constitute State aid due to the lack of State resources being involved.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of law by infringing the concept of Article 107(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 106(1) TFEU by failure to consider Article 106(1) TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by infringing Article 10(2) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1) in not sufficiently making use of investigation powers provided thereunder.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement by failing to state sufficient reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU with regard to the lack of State resources and the concept of Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 107(1) TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1).
—

annul Articles 1 and 3(1) of the decision of the European Commission of 25 November 2014, State aid No SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — C (2014) 8786 final, relating to the promotion of electricity generation from renewable sources and the payment of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive industries, in so far as those provisions provide for the following: (i) the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources on the basis of the German Law for the priority of renewable energy sources (Law on Renewable Energy Sources of 25 October 2008 in the updated version of 1 January 2012 — ‘the EEG 2012’) including its financing mechanism, and (ii) support for the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users (special compensation regime — BesAR) according to which Paragraphs 40 et seq of the EEG 2012, for 2013 and 2014, amount to unlawful existing State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, in infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/26

Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council

(Case T-107/15)

(2015/C 171/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal and Z. Burbeza, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 (2) insofar as they apply to the applicant (including the entry of the applicant in entry b) 9 of the Annex to Decision 2014/862/CFSP);

— insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to the applicant; and

— order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of this application.

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 Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of the applicant’s designation, as it was required to do, and has erred in law in following the decision of the UN Sanctions Committee without undertaking any EU-level assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or the applicant’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in the applicant’s case. In particular, there is no basis for alleging that the applicant has breached the arms embargo and the Council cannot and/or has failed to establish any relevant matters set out in its statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated the applicant’s procedural rights and in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection, by inter alia failing to provide the applicant with the material on which its designation was maintained prior to the passing of Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014, and by failing to give adequate reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is in any event in breach with its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Implementing Decision 2014/862/CFSP of 1 December 2014 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 36).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1275/2014 of 1 December 2014 implementing Article 9(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 346, p. 3).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 155/31

Action brought on 27 February 2015 — Dextro Energy v Commission

(Case T-100/15)

(2015/C 155/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dextro Energy GmbH & Co. KG (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: Rechtsanwälte M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/8 of 6 January 2015 refusing to authorise certain health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health (OJ 2015 L 3, p. 6);

— 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 four pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 18(4) of Regulation No 1924/2006 (1)

The applicant claims that there are no grounds to justify the refusal to authorise the five health claims which have nonetheless received five favourable scientific assessments from the European Food Safety Authority. Those five health claims neither infringe generally accepted nutrition and health principles, nor convey a conflicting and confusing message to consumers. They are also neither ambiguous nor misleading.

Second plea in law, alleging a lack of proportionality

The applicant claims that, in view of the favourable opinion of the European Food Safety Authority on the applicant’s five health claims, the absolute ban on advertising resulting from the rejection of those health claims was disproportionate.

Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality

The applicant submits that the defendant has refused to authorise scientifically uncontested health claims despite having authorised similar health claims in the past.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a failure to provide sufficient grounds

Finally, the applicant claims that the contested regulation does not provide sufficient grounds; it cannot be discerned whether the defendant took into account the arguments of the applicant and of the public, nor whether it even carried out an independent appraisal of those arguments.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).
Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the ‘market economy investor’ test.

The applicant puts forward that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission used manifestly insufficient, unverified and unreliable data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, and dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 198/46

Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T-203/15)

(2015/C 198/63)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 552 162

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1900/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/30

Action brought on 15 April 2015 — TMG Landelijke Media and Willems v Commission

(Case T-189/15)

(2015/C 190/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: TMG Landelijke Media BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Menzo Willems (Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Le Poole and L. Broers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Decision of 17 February 2015;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission Decision whereby their request for access to the correspondence between the Netherlands and the Commission, concerning the European additional tax imposed on the Netherlands in 2014, was rejected in part.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). The applicants claim that the Commission wrongly did not make certain documents public because public disclosure would lead to an undermining of the protection of the public interest regarding European Union financial, monetary or economic policy.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants claim that the Commission provided evidence inadequate for concluding that the decision-making process will be seriously undermined, and that it wrongly and readily disregarded the test on the higher public interest in the public disclosure of certain documents.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in relation to the anonymisation of non-senior staff. The applicants claim that that makes it impossible to determine the level at which correspondence is carried out and whether it indeed concerns non-senior staff.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicants are of the view that the Commission wrongly accepted the Netherlands’ request not to disclose certain documents originating from the Netherlands on the basis of Article 4(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1049/2001. They refer in that regard to the arguments put forward in the context of the second and third pleas.

(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).
—

The re-listing of the applicant is in any event based on the assumed legality of the restrictive measures imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping lines, but such IRISL measures are unlawful (for the reasons advanced by IRISL, which reasons are incorporated by reference herein) with the result that the measures taken against the applicant must be annulled.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 205/40

Action brought on 30 April 2015 — Fiesta Hotels & Resorts v OHIM — Residencial Palladium (PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA)

(Case T-217/15)

(2015/C 205/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PALLADIUM PALACE IBIZA RESORT & SPA’ — Community trade mark No 10 524 213

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 2391/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and declare ineffective the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009, read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 236/48

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Edison v OHIM — Eolus Vind (e)

(Case T-276/15)

(2015/C 236/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Edison SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Martucci, F. Boscariol de Roberto and I. Gatto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eolus Vind AB (publ) (Hässleholm, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the letter ‘e’ — Application for registration No 10 420 941

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2015 in Case R 2358/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

According to the applicants, Article 101 TFUE does not cover conduct by an accomplice which does not take part in an agreement which restricts/distorts competition. The test applied by the Commission was, in any event, incorrect and covers too broad a spectrum of conduct that is not sufficiently closely connected to the infringing conduct. The conduct of the applicants falls outside the test for facilitation adopted by the defendant. In particular, the applicants put forward that the finding that the applicants facilitated the exchange of information between the banks lacks any basis in fact, and that the defendant does not point out a single instance of the applicants facilitating such exchanges. According to the applicants, the same applies to the exploration of alignment trades. With respect to the manipulation of the Yen LIBPR submissions, the Commission has acknowledged that only one of two banks knew of ICAP’s involvement. As such, so the applicants claim, ICAP had no facilitating role as far as the conduct of the banks is concerned. Moreover, for those infringements, the infringing conduct started well before ICAP allegedly commenced the facilitation.