ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 4 August 2021 — RTE v ACER

(Case T-472/21)

(2021/C 382/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RTE Réseau de transport de l’électricité (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Levitt, lawyer, B. Byrne, Solicitor, and D. Vasbeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, the defendant’s Board of Appeal Decision A-001-2021 (consolidated) of 28 May 2021 (the ‘Decision’) upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020;

— Grant the relief sought by the Applicant in its Notice of Appeal before the defendant’s Board of Appeal; and

— Order the defendant to pay the 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 the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because, in upholding the defendant’s Decision 30/2020 of 30 November 2020, the defendant’s Board of Appeal unlawfully extended the scope of Article 16(13), Electricity Regulation (1) as well as Article 74, CACM (2), and breached the fundamental principle of conferral laid down in Article 5(2) of the TEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error of law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal incorrectly interpreted the relevant legal framework and failed to correctly apply the requisite parameters for adopting a common methodology for cost sharing of redispatching and countertrading for the Core capacity calculation region.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Decision violates the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons, and fails to discharge the legal obligations of the defendant’s Board of Appeal as an appeal board.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is vitiated by an error in law because the defendant’s Board of Appeal wrongly interpreted and applied Article 3 of Regulation (3) and related provisions and principles of EU law governing the languages in which the defendant is required to issue its decisions, including Article 342 TFEU, Article 3(3) TEU, Article 22 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 44(1) of the ACER Regulation (4), the principle of legal certainty, and the rights of defence.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the internal market for electricity (OJ 2019, L 158, p. 54).

(2) Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 of 24 July 2015 establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management (OJ 2015, L 197, p. 24).

(3) Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, P 17, p. 385) as amended most recently by Council Regulation 517/2013 of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (recast) (OJ 2019 L 158, p. 22).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 June 2021 — Česká asociace satelitních operátorů v Commission

(Case T-363/21)

(2021/C 368/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Česká asociace satelitních operátorů z. s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: R. Kubáč, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 15 March 2021 on State aid SA.55805 (2020/FC) — Czech Republic — Extension of DTT network operators’ frequency licences;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a violation of Article 8a (c) of the Conditions of employment, and of Articles 1a.1.1(b), 1a.2.1.1 and 1a.2.6.1 of the Staff Regulations; Violation of the vacancy notice; Breach of the interest of the service.
Action brought on 23 July 2021 — UBS Group and UBS v Commission

(Case T-441/21)

(2021/C 412/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UBS Group AG (Zurich, Switzerland), UBS AG (Zurich) (represented by: D. Wood and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the Application admissible and well-founded, and annul the Commission Decision of 20 May 2021 C(2021) 3489 final relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40324 — European Government Bonds); or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine to € 51,3 million in accordance with UBS’ net value traded methodology; or reduce it to € 60,6 million in accordance with UBS’ adjusted net value traded methodology; or reduce the fine by at least 65 % as a consequence of the errors and inaccuracies identified in the Commission’s methodology; and

— Order the Commission to bear its own costs as well as the costs of UBS.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the generally applicable EU rules for calculating the turnover of financial institutions, thus breaching the general principles of equal treatment and legitimate expectations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has wrongly departed from the Fining Guidelines (1) in a way that was both arbitrary and insufficiently explained, in violation of the relevant case law and UBS’ rights of defence.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning supporting its choice of methodology.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to use the best available figures in calculating UBS’ value of sales.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission applied its own methodology in a manner which was materially flawed, and is vitiated by a number of material inaccuracies and errors which resulted in the imposition of a disproportionately high fine on UBS.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.
—

order the Council of the European Union to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 for each month during which his name was entered on the lists at issue as compensation for the non-material damage resulting from the difficulties caused to his daily life and the damage to his health, to which should be added statutory interest, and any other sum that may be justified;
—

furthermore, annul Decision D 200663, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, on the ground that it results in an infringement of the Treaties and other rules of law relating to their application in the terms set out, as well as a further infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the grounds of that decision by which the applicant’s petition is declared inadmissible are not applicable to the case and lack any foundation in law. In the light of the foregoing, the Court should, following the appropriate legal formalities: — primarily, declare that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed; — in the alternative, order the Committee on Petitions to return the matter to the initial moment, in which that committee should take a new decision on the petition submitted, this time respecting the rights that were infringed and declaring that the applicant’s petition is allowed to proceed and is available to supporters;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)

(Case T-546/21)

(2021/C 422/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genoa, Italy)

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 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 326 609

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2021 in Case R 1544/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— stay the proceeding until a final judgement has been taken in the proceeding before the court of Milan against the Italian trade mark 933481 ROCHEM MARINE (fig.);

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision, ordering that the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO renders a new decision, refusing the declaration of invalidation filed against the European Union trade mark registration No. 12 326 609 R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services (fig.) against the classes 11 and 40;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should the latter appear before the Court, to bear their own costs and the fees and costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 August 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-535/21)

(2021/C 431/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0009

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2021 in Case R 1004/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicant’s application ICD 10 297 to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicant to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 20 and 35 of the Charter on the basis that the contested regulation is not aligned with WHO and ECDC guidelines as regards the use of swabs. Misuse of power. In that regard, the applicants submit that RT-PCR swabs are amplified in the laboratories of certain countries with a higher number of cycles than that set out as being reliable by the ECDC and the WHO. Swabs are used without precautionary and/or subsequent clinical verification, and the incorrect amplification means that the results are wrong. If the result is positive, the test is not repeated as is advised in the WHO guidelines, and thus in that respect in-vitro testing is also entirely unreliable. The contested regulation obliges asymptomatic persons to be subject to screening in order to obtain an EU Certificate, whereas the WHO guidelines state that the RT-PCR swab tests and/or rapid tests for asymptomatic persons are useless, it not being proven that those persons are infectious. The only seriously practicable solution for reaching, with the maximum level of scientific reliability, the objective of making travel as safe as possible, which the contested regulation sets out as its goal, is to oblige vaccinated and unvaccinated persons to undergo a saliva test immediately prior to the required use and, in the event of a positive result, to carry out an RT-PCR swab test that is amplified by a number of cycles that is compatible with the WHO and ECDC guidelines.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 September 2021 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (Papouis Halloumi)

(Case T-565/21)

(2021/C 452/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Milbradt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colour containing the word element Papouis Halloumi Papouis Dairies LTD PAP since 1967 — Application for registration No 11 176 344

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2021 in Case R 575/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the EUIPO to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment The defendant made a manifest error of assessment in determining, by the contested decision, that the German State aid ‘Allgemeine Bundesregelung Schadensausgleich, COVID-19’ (General Federal Scheme for Compensation, Covid-19) is compatible with the internal market under Article 107(2)(b) TFEU. The applicant claims that restricting the eligibility of undertakings with several business activities to those which achieve at least 80 % of their turnover from activities directly affected by the lockdown is arbitrary and that the approval of the aid scheme is disproportionate. According to the applicant, the 80 % threshold removes, without any objective reason, the causal link between the closure orders and the damage resulting therefrom to the detriment of undertakings with several business areas, since such undertakings might remain entirely without compensation despite being directly and significantly affected by the State measures and the considerable losses associated therewith. This leads to a distortion of competition, both in relation to competitors in business areas that were affected by Covid-19 and in relation to those in business areas that were not affected by Covid-19.
—

order the defendant, pursuant to Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to produce an anonymised copy of the minutes of the meeting with the Joint Promotion Committee and of the minutes of the meeting between the representatives of the Central Staff Committee and the Director general of DG TAXUD,
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2021 — Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO — Mystic Products and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-578/21)

(2021/C 462/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: T. Wuttke, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 1 431 829-0008

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2021 in Case R 1009/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications to declare the contested design invalid, — order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division;

— order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 24 March 2021, Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building block from a toy building set) (T-515/19, not published, EU:T:2021:155);

— Infringement of the principles set forth in the judgment of 8 March 2018, DOCERAM (C-395/16, EU:C:2018:172);

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 September 2021 — Privatbrauerei Eichbaum v EUIPO — Anchor Brewing Company (STEAM)

(Case T-609/21)

(2021/C 471/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Privatbrauerei Eichbaum GmbH & Co. KG (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Schmidhuber and E. Levenson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anchor Brewing Company LLC (San Francisco, California, United States)

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: European Union word mark STEAM — European Union trade mark No 5 435 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 780/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division relating to the goods ‘beer, alcoholic beer’ in Class 32 and;

— alter the contested decision by declaring the European trade mark registration STEAM No 5 435 375 revoked in its entirety and;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 October 2021 — Casa International v EUIPO — Interstyle (casa)

(Case T-650/21)

(2021/C 490/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Casa International (Olen, Belgium) (represented by: F. Cornette and T. Poels-Ryckeboer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Interstyle BV (Utrecht, Netherlands)

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 casa in green and white — European Union trade mark No 3 017 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2021 in Case R 1280/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible and well-founded; and therefore, to annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO as well as the other party, should the other party intervene in the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the renewal decision is illegal, in so far as it results from the reorganisation process launched by ENISA, which, it is alleged, has not been carried out in the interests of the service — Breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, and breach of Articles 18(1) and 20(2)(a) of Management Board decision MB/2018/14. — The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of clarity and transparency, by a breach of the principle of legal certainty, by a manifest error of assessment and by a violation of principle 6 of Decision MB/2020/5. — The reorganisation process is vitiated by a lack of motivation. — The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of Annex 1 of the Administrative Notice. — The reorganisation process has been carried out in violation of principles 7 and 8 of Decision MB/2020/5, of the principle of good administration, of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and in violation of the duty of care.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is linked to and based upon the disciplinary sanction, applied to the applicant more than fifteen years ago. There is no legal system and/or act in the European Union that allows administrative offences/disciplinary misconduct to be considered as relevant after fifteen years have passed.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 166 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) and procedural errors — Pursuant to Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, the Management Board of EUIPO is competent to appoint members of the Board of Appeal. The Management Board divested itself of its decision-making powers and transferred them to the Preparatory Subcommittee. The Preparatory Subcommittee exceeded its purely preparatory powers and adopted its own decisions which were not comprehensible for the Management Board because the relevant and decisive information was not submitted to it. — As a result of the participation of the President of the Boards of Appeal in the Subcommittee, the latter’s constitution infringes Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001. The President of the Boards of Appeal is not a member of the Management Board. The participation of the President of the Board of Appeal is contrary to the wording of Article 166(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, which enumerates the competences of the organs/bodies referred to therein.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 November 2021 — Compass Tex v EUIPO (Trusted Handwork)

(Case T-704/21)

(2022/C 2/68)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Compass Tex Ltd (Tsuen Wan, Hongkong, China) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Trusted Handwork — Application for registration No 18 244 483

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 in Case R 0034/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law