ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

In the context of its discretion when carrying out complex economic and social assessments, the defendant must be able to show that it evaluated all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation which the contested act was intended to govern. The defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment when excluding the applicants’ sector from the list of eligible sectors contained in Annex I to the contested act, notably by (a) failing to substantiate and justify the introduction of two additional eligibility thresholds; (b) failing to take into account the relevant and complete electricity consumption data of the applicants’ sector, which led to the underestimation of the sector's indirect emission intensity and to the sector's exclusion from Annex I; (c) disregarding the evidence produced by the applicants without stating reasons; and (d) with regard to the qualitative assessment, incorrectly assessing the sector’s fuel/electricity substitutability and failing to substantiate why the sector's subsectors were not included in Annex I based on this criterion.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 3(1) and 7(4) of the GIP, in so far as the IDOC communicated the confidential report of the duty security staff to the Director-General of [confidential] in view of his hearing or continued the investigation without having established, in breach of its mandate, whether the rules of procedure had been observed, even though the latter was aware of the report. The applicant claims that it is apparent from the file that the Director-General of [confidential] was aware of the report concerning the incident which gave rise to the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that that report was confidential and that the preliminary analysis should have included, inter alia, checking that her statements were consistent with that report, which, moreover, contained indicia that she had been involved in the incident, had requested a security report and announced that she would make a report to the hierarchy.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Corman v Commission

(Case T-25/21)

(2021/C 72/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie Corman (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 4 June 2020 determining the applicant’s entitlement to a retirement pension;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)

(Case T-51/21)

(2021/C 98/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

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 figurative mark Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 918

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2020 in Case R 530/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— hold an oral hearing;

— annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;

— order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)

(Case T-46/21)

(2021/C 88/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liu Yajun (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark PREMILITY — Application for registration No 17 899 016

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2020 in Case R 881/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145.
Action brought on 12 February 2021 — Darment v. Commission

(Case T-92/21)

(2021/C 128/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision to reduce the quota allocated to the applicant for the year 2021 for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market about which the applicant was informed via F-Gas Portal System of the defendant on 15 December 2020 and by the email of 12 January 2021;

— order the defendant to pay 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 that the defendant infringed Article 266 TFEU by imposing the penalty on the applicant even though the Court annulled the defendant’s decision finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of HFC on the market and imposing the penalty on it;

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Article 25(2) of Regulation (EU) 517/2014, (1) in conjunction with Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, by continuing to impose the Penalty to the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 195)
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), an infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Regulations’), an infringement of Article 5 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16), an infringement of Article 2 of the United Nations Convention, an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and a failure to provide reasonable accommodation;
—

order the defendant to produce the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2021 — Team Beverage v EUIPO (Beverage Analytics)

(Case T-113/21)

(2021/C 128/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Team Beverage AG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Beverage Analytics — Application for registration No 18 101 437

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 December 2020 in Case R 727/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal brought by the applicant against the defendant’s decision of 21 February 2020;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 16 February 2021 — Synesis v Council

(Case T-97/21)

(2021/C 148/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Synesis OOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 of 17 December 2020 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 14) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 of 17 December 2020 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2020 L 426 I, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant;

— pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the argument that the contested measures are unlawful in so far as they concern the applicant, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and in particular infringed its examination obligations. In the applicant’s view, the Council failed to provide any concrete evidence to justify the validity of the applicant’s inclusion on the list in the contested measures.
—

order the defendant to provide the M.8870 and M.8871 files concerning (i) the discussions between the defendant and the merging parties before and during the merger proceedings, (ii) the separate notification of the individual parts of the transaction, and (iii) its change of opinion during the proceedings;
—

principally, annul the contested decision C(2020) 8286 final of 20 November 2020 concerning the amendment of the scheme SA.57712 — COVID-19: direct grant scheme to support the fixed costs for small and medium-sized enterprises affected by the COVID-19 outbreak (SA.59535 (2020/N)), both in so far as it relates to (a) the distinction between SMEs and other undertakings, and (b) the maximum amount of EUR 90 000;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (ECB) participated in creating a picture of the bank’s situation and prospects on the basis of which shareholders felt confident to invest significant resources to purchase Carige shares and subscribe to increases in capital and pay for them; it subsequently undermined that confidence by its conduct and contradictory decisions, imposing unjustified, disproportionate and also, in other respects, unlawful measures, which form part of overall unlawful and harmful conduct. In that regard, the applicants refer, inter alia and in particular, to: (i) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increases in capital of 2014 and 2015; (ii) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (iii) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part; (iv) the confidence in Carige’s situation created by the increase in capital of 2017; (v) the subsequent undermining of that confidence as a result of ECB’s conduct and measures; (vi) the unlawfulness of those measures and the unlawfulness of the overall conduct of which they are part;(vii) the unlawfulness of ECB’s measures — causing serious harm consisting in loss of value of the shares held by Carige’s shareholders — which would have imposed the divestiture of non-performing loans, in a way and to an extent which are unjustified, disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equal treatment and other principles.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not deal appropriately with procedural irregularities. These include the fact that the Latvian FCMC (1) had concluded, immediately prior to the initiation of the licence withdrawal procedure, that a licence withdrawal was not warranted and that this fact was subsequently omitted from the request by the FCMC to revoke the licence. The applicant further complains that the English language version of the FCMC’s most recent decision was manipulated. Further alleged procedural irregularities concern a failure to deal effectively with potentially corrupt conduct by Latvian and European officials with respect to the present matter.
Action brought on 29 March 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-165/21)

(2021/C 189/25)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 31 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision as amended and supplemented.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action against Commission Implementing Decision (C(2021) 698 final) of 29 January 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-10 Vaccine AstraZeneca — COVID-19 Vaccine (ChAdOx1-S [recombinant])’ is based on the following pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proved that the worldwide panic resulting from the high mortality rate allegedly associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. In addition, the WHO and the EU should not have duly recognised the emergency situation as a public health threat.

2. Second plea in law: the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on account of: — the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance under Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, as it is unlikely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, as there is no medical need that can be met by the authorised medication; — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

3. Third plea in law: infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

4. Fourth plea in law: gross infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the EU Charter.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing autorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 March 2021 — The Smiley Company v EUIPO — SC Ha Ha Ha Production (SMILEY)

(Case T-169/21)

(2021/C 217/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Fontaine, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Ha Ha Ha Production SRL (Calinesti, Romania)

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 word mark SMILEY — Application for registration No 17 569 641

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2021 in Case R 2936/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 March 2021 — Ubisoft Entertainment v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (FOR HONOR)

(Case T-171/21)

(2021/C 228/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ubisoft Entertainment (Carentoir, France) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, Chine)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FOR HONOR — Application for registration No 14 744 338

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 January 2021 in Case R 1297/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear all costs and to reimburse the applicant of all costs supported for the opposition action and appeal action including appeal taxes.

Plea in law

— Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 April 2021 — Lea Nature Services v EUIPO — Debonair Trading Internacional (SO…?)

(Case T-196/21)

(2021/C 217/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lea Nature Services (Périgny, France) (represented by: F. Drageon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal)

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 figurative mark SO…? — European Union trade mark No 17 473 513

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2021 in Case R 1235/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs which they have incurred in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 3 May 2021 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-246/21)

(2021/C 242/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and six other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision establishing the applicants’ pay slip for the month of July 2020 in so far as it applies, for the first time, the new correction coefficients applicable to their salary, with retroactive effect from 1 October 2019 and 1 January 2020;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants allege infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty of care.

In order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants who are posted outside the European Union, Eurostat should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for the application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, set out in Annex XI thereto. The collection of the data used to set the correction coefficient is carried out under an international cooperation agreement between Eurostat, the OECD and the UN.

The coefficients set on the basis of those data fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation.

In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF. Furthermore, the statistical data of both the Central Bank of Congo and the UN and the IMF, show a parallel trend of the USD and the CDF in relation to the euro.