ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 18 October 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Parliament

(Case T-733/14)

(2015/C 016/66)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics (Luxembourg (Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Veletsanou and M. Sfiri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Parliament D(2014)38802 dated 18 September 2014, whereby the Parliament rejected the applicants’ tender for Lot 3 in the open procurement procedure 2014/S 066-111912 titled ‘PE/ITEC-ITS14 — External provision of IT services’; and

— order the European Parliament to pay all the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments in support of annulment

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:

In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the ground of the Parliament’s breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regard to the applicants’ technical offer, with which they participated in the procurement procedure at issue.

The applicants claim that the reasons stated for the ranking which was given to their technical offer and to that of the other tenderers for Lot 3 of the procurement procedure at issue, with regard to each defined award criterion, did not enable them to understand either the reasons for the ranking which their tender achieved nor the characteristics and advantages of the tenders submitted by other tenderers. The applicants claim that, if an adequate statement of reasons for the ranking of their technical offer were available to them, they would be better able to state their defence.

The applicants also submit that the Parliament infringed the contractual documents (the tender specifications and supplementary guidelines), which the Parliament had itself drawn up, in relation to the method for the evaluation of the financial offers submitted by the tenderers, and which were binding on it. In so acting, the Parliament infringed both the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application, under which the contracting authority is to conduct a procurement procedure in accordance with the contractual documents and with due regard to the general principles of EU law.
3.

By reason of its legal personality (as a commercial company) the applicant does not have the right to participate in any procedure for the grant of subsidies provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, even if it effectively operates on the same market as its competitors and supports the same target group of persons — the recipients (who are also identical in terms of the general/public interest).
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 does not give proper effect to the provisions of the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP in that the Council was not competent to adopt or, if it was competent, could not lawfully adopt, Article 3 of the Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 in that on its face (at least) it conflicts with the underlying provisions of the Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP, namely its Article 4.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/53

Action brought on 17 November 2014 — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos and Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt (Oksana)

(Case T-767/14)

(2015/C 046/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Jonker, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artevos GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) and Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt eV (Bielefeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Applicant for Community plant variety right: applicant

Community plant variety right at issue: Oksana — application No 2005/1046

Contested decision: decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 July 2014 in Case A 007/2013

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consequently, uphold the applicant’s appeal against decisions R 1232, OBJ 13-086, OBJ 13-087, OBJ 13-088 and OBJ 13-090 of the CPVO, find that the applicant’s variety is (sufficiently) new within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 2100/94 and grant a Community plant variety right for the applicant’s variety;

— order the CPVO and the other parties to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 34/41

Action brought on 29 November 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN)

(Case T-785/14)

(2015/C 034/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MOTORTOWN’ — Application for registration No 1 0 3 51 931

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 1960/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in which the Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division partially upholding Opposition No B 1 9 51 774 and rejecting in part Community figurative mark application No 1 0 3 51 931‘MOTORTOWN’; and

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/50

Action brought on 23 December 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (Sky BONUS)

(Case T-840/14)

(2015/C 065/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

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 ‘Sky BONUS’ — Application for registration No 10 734 549

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2040/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Partially annul the contested decision and grant registration of CTM application ‘Sky BONUS’;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 110 of the Financial Regulation and 149 of the Delegated Regulation — The formula used does not lead to the award of the contract to the tender offering the best value for money. — The applicants submit that the table, from which the Evaluation Committee extracted the values in order to apply the evaluation formula, does not correspond to the way the contract is expected to be executed. As a result the elements taken into consideration do not correspond to the real needs of the European Parliament, which will necessarily lead to the award of the cascade contracts to tenderers that do not offer the best value for money for the needs thereof.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and good administration. First, the Commission never objected to the working method adopted by the applicant during the 32 months that the project was carried out. The applicant inferred from this behaviour that the Commission approved of the elements that were provided to it, so that the contested decision seriously undermines legal certainty. Secondly, by failing to detect in time the irregularities alleged in the contested decision, the Commission led the applicant to believe that its behaviour was correct. The conviction thus engendered should be protected under the principle of legitimate expectations, so that the Commission failed to fulfil its duty of supervision and, therefore, its duty of good administration.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/48

Action brought on 29 December 2014 — Antrax It v OHIM — Vasco Group (Radiators for heating)

(Case T-829/14)

(2015/C 065/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vasco Group BVBA (Dilsen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design for ‘thermosiphon’ products — Community design No 593959-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2014 in Case R 1273/2013-3

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Join the present case to the action brought by the applicant against the decision in Case R 1272/2013-3 of OHIM, since that decision is identical to that contested in the present action;

— Annul the contested decision in so far as Community design No 593959-0002 was declared invalid because it lacked individual character and, consequently, declare valid that design without remitting the matter to OHIM for the third time;

— Annul the contested decision of OHIM in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs;

— Order OHIM and Vasco Group BVBA, jointly and severally, to pay Antrax It Srl, costs, compensation and legal fees, together with any additional sums required by law;

— Order Vasco Group BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, compensation including technical compensation and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM together with any additional sums required by law;

— Declare Article 1(d) of Regulation No 216/96 to be incompatible with Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Pleas in law and main arguments
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the legal rules relating to the application of the Treaty — imposing on BES the costs relating to monitoring compliance with the commitments made by the Portuguese Republic: — Imposing on BES obligations relating to an act by a third party regarding which BES did not give its consent and from which it does not benefit, and which was not chosen in accordance with criteria that ensure compliance with the principle of the most cost-effective solution, to the potential detriment of BES creditors and shareholders; — Under the contested decision, the Monitoring Trustee is appointed by the Resolution Fund. However, while it is the responsibility of the Portuguese Republic only to appoint a single Monitoring Trustee, is not acceptable that the burden of remunerating the Monitoring Trustee should be the entire responsibility of BES. That solution breaches the principles underlying public aid: (i) it strengthens the advantage enjoyed by the Bridge Bank, relieving it of resolution charges that would otherwise be imposed on it by law; (ii) it distorts competition in favour of the Bridge Bank, relieving it of charges that were not quantified in the authorisation of State aid; — In the EU legislation concerning State aid there is no basis for imposing the responsibility for remunerating the Monitoring Trustee on BES, which, it is pointed out, is not an addressee of the Decision nor a beneficiary of the aid; — Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, on the Single Resolution Mechanism, applicable as of 2016, does not add anything in that regard, notwithstanding that it provides for the role of Trustee in Article 19, nor is anything added by Regulation No 1093/2010 or Directive 2014/59/EU, the transposition period of which has not yet expired; — Within the context of EU law, and within the scope of the action of DG COMP (Directorate-General for Competition of the European Commission), the service responsible for drawing up the contested decision, there are clear interpretative provisions concerning the Monitoring Trustee and its remuneration, which may serve to remedy the legislative omissions concerning the situation at issue, particularly with regard to the quantitative remuneration structure of the Monitoring Trustee, which must be based on agreement between the parties, subject to approval by the European Commission and the necessary independence and means to be granted; — The way in which the Monitoring Trustee should, in practice, be remunerated cannot be imposed on the applicant by the European Commission, so that the binding imposition of such a financial charge by the European Commission (that is, without prior acceptance of its amount by BES) has no legal basis, either in Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 or in any other legislative text; — The European Commission itself, in the contested decision, merely stated that the Monitoring Trustee is to be remunerated by the Bad Bank ‘in a way that must not impede the independent and effective fulfilment of its mandate’. There is, therefore, no specific definition of the structure of the remuneration, in particular how this will be implemented in practice, or of its limits.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Ice Mountain Ibiza/OHIM — Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club (ocean ibiza)

(Case T-6/15)

(2015/C 073/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyer, and F. Miazzetto, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL (Puerto Banús, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean ibiza’ — Application for registration No 10 610 525

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 8 October 2014 in Case R 2207/2013-1 so as to reject the opposition filed by Marbella Atlantic Ocean Club, SL and grant the application for a Community trade mark No 10 610 525 ‘ocean ibiza’ (mixed) in Class 41; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as all those incurred to date in the earlier proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM that have led to the present application.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 96/23

Action brought on 2 February 2015 — Hydrex v Commission

(Case T-45/15)

(2015/C 096/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Hydrex NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van Eysendeyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare unlawful and therefore annul European Commission decision C(2015) 103 final of 12 January 2015, notified to the applicant under Article 297 TFEU by letter of 13 January 2015, concerning recovery order No. 3241405101 for the amount of EUR 5 40 721,10, on the ground that there was a manifest failure to state reasons and, consequently, a manifest error of assessment;

— order the European Commission to return all the amounts wrongly claimed and/or retained;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2006, the grant contract LIFE06 ENV/B/000362, entitled ‘Demonstration of a 100 % non-toxic durable hull protection and anti-fouling system contributing to zero emission to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels’, was signed by the European Commission and the applicant. The recovery by the Commission at issue is based on an ex-post audit which allegedly showed that the eligible costs of the project had to be reduced.

In support of its action, the applicant submits that the obligation to state reasons has been infringed. It submits that the Commission took no account of an audit that was carried out when all the documents were still available. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission took no account of its observation on the ex-post audit report, which justified an additional amount.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/37

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (BIMBO)

(Case T-33/15)

(2015/C 089/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, 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 work mark ‘BIMBO’ — Application for registration No 11 616 414

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 251/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, declaring in its judgment the sufficient distinctiveness, whether inherent or acquired by use, of the mark applied for, upholding the present action and ordering the registration of Community trade mark application No 11 616 414 ‘BIMBO’ in Class 30 of the International Classification; and

— order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/39

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

(Case T-73/15)

(2015/C 118/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle) — Application for registration No 1 2 2 18 426

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1796/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

— allow the community trade mark application No 1 2 2 18 426 to proceed to publication;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 February 2015 — 1&1 Internet v OHIM — Unoe Bank (1e1)

(Case T-61/15)

(2015/C 107/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 1&1 Internet AG (Montabaur, Germany) (represented by: G. Klopp, lawyer)

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

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘1e1’ — Application No 11 047 479

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2014 in Case R 101/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 002090507 between 1&1 Internet AG and UNO E Bank;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

accordingly, grant the applicant the relief sought at first instance; and therefore: — declare the application admissible; — principally: — annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010; — in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations; — accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements; — in the alternative, and if the request for reinstatement set out above is not granted, order the Commission to compensate for the material damage sustained by the defendant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono as the difference between the salary the appellant would have received as a temporary agent at OLAF and that relating to the post he currently occupies (approximately EUR 3 000 per month) for at least a period similar to that of his initial contract (4 years), and longer if that contract had been renewed a third time, giving him the right to a permanent contract; — in any event, order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed and ex aequo et bono of EUR 5 000 (five thousand euros) as compensation for non-material damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/36

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Ludwig Bertram v OHIM — Seni Vita (Sanivita)

(Case T-58/15)

(2015/C 118/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ludwig Bertram GmbH (Isernhagen, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seni Vita OHG (Bayreuth, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark No 9949959

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1087/2013-1

Form of order sought

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

Plea in law