ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 350/22

Action brought on 20 July 2016 — Eval Europe v Commission

(Case T-388/16)

(2016/C 350/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eval Europe NV (Zwijndrecht, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, order the European Commission 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).
1.

First ground, alleging breach of EU law in relation to the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence, in so far as the appointing authority of the European Commission did not set out in detail the reasons behind its decision to impose on the appellant, by way of disciplinary penalty, a downgrading by two grades within the same function group.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/22

Action brought on 30 August 2016 — Colgate-Palmolive v EUIPO (AROMASENSATIONS)

(Case T-479/16)

(2016/C 383/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler, A. Stolz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘AROMASENSATIONS’ — Application for registration No 14 198 824

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2016 in Case R 2482/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismisses the appeal insofar as it is based on Article 7(1)(b);

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was adopted on the basis of materials obtained during a previous inspection at the business premises of České dráhy which was carried out on the basis of an illegal decision. The European Commission could not use the materials thus obtained, not even for the adoption of the decision contested by the present action.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/61

Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)

(Case T-665/16)

(2016/C 402/72)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal adviser, K. Gajek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the symbols ‘€’ and ‘$’ — Application for registration No 13 839 998

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2016 in Case R 2086/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law
—

declare that the contested acts may be annulled in part since the part of the acts which should be annulled can be separated from the act as a whole, and accordingly annul the following: — Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant, and — Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/840 of 27 May 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/24

Action brought on 17 September 2016 — Márquez Alentà v EUIPO — (Fiesta Hotels & Resorts) (representation of an ant)

(Case T-657/16)

(2016/C 410/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Marc Márquez Alentà (Cervera, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL (Ibiza, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative EU mark (Representation of an ant) — Application for registration No 12 715 661

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2016 in Case R 1242/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the partial upholding of application R 1242/2015-1 and the opposition for certain goods applied for in Class 16 and services in Class 35;

— consequently, confirm the Opposition Division’s decision and therefore grant the trade mark for all of the goods and services applied for in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 43;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the ECDC breached Article 266 TFEU by incorrectly implementing the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12 CJ v ECDC, and arguing in particular — that, due to the irrevocable change in essential circumstances the ECDC was wrong to give retroactive effect to the contested decision; — that the ECDC breached the principle of proportionality, as the contested decision was neither suitable nor necessary for the achievement of the objective pursued by the annulled 2012 dismissal; — that the ECDC committed a manifest error of assessment in disregarding the recruitment fraud of the head of the ECDC legal service; — that the ECDC breached Article 22a(3) of the Staff Regulations in dismissing the applicant in reaction to his reporting, in tempore non suspecto shortly before his dismissal, facts which raised the suspicion of financial mismanagement at the ECDC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 428/17

Action brought on 1 September 2016 — IPA v Commission

(Case T-635/16)

(2016/C 428/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SC IPA SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: L. Vasilescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, issued by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant argues that in essence, the dispute lies in the calculation of the indirect costs related to the contract that has the applicant as beneficiary. Thus, a few years after the contract completion, the Commission imposed a flawed formula for the computation of the indirect costs, that is, non-conforming to the contract terms and contrary to the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.

The applicant contends that the Commission based its pretentions on an audit and agreed to all auditor findings, without noticing that the method of calculation of indirect costs applied by auditors violates: (i) the accounting and management principles and practices of the beneficiary that are also imposed by the contract as prevailing and (ii) the generally accepted principles and practices in accounting management.

The applicant also alleges that the calculation methods for the contract indirect costs, used by the auditor and agreed by the Commission, were unjustifiably different from the accounting system of the beneficiary, while by contract all costs had to be determined in accordance with the usual accounting and management principle and practice of the beneficiary. The beneficiary’s accounting system was the only accepted accounting system for the contract, and there was no reason to replace or disapprove the beneficiary’s accounting procedures used for the computation of contract’s indirect costs.

Finally it is alleged that, by the audit procedure, the auditor undervalued the real indirect costs for the contract, and the Commission, after agreeing in whole with the auditor’s conclusions, generated the debit notes of 28 June 2016 Nos. 3241608864, in the amount of EUR 63 653,58, and 3241608865, in the amount of EUR 9 690,30, to recover the differences in costs described in the audit.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/32

Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)

(Case T-723/16)

(2016/C 462/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RE-CONzerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 661

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2374/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 661 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;

— order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) v Commission

(Case T-681/16)

(2016/C 441/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Henkel Electronic Materials (Belgium) (Westerlo, Belgium) (represented by: N. Reypens, C. Docclo and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the present case and Case T-131/16 on account of the connection between them, for the purposes of the oral part of the procedure and of the judgment;

— admit and uphold the pleas for annulment raised in the present application;

— annul Articles 1 and 2 of the contested decision (1);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the contested decision in so far as it does not lay down transitional measures;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

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 a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the legal acts that provide for the alleged Sate aid and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 1(d) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (2).

2. Second plea in law, alleging an error of fact in the description of the reference system, a manifest error of assessment in the analysis of it and an error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

3. Third plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of an economic advantage, error of law in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in assessing the selectivity necessary to characterise the disputed regime as state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and an error of assessment in analysing the mechanisms of the disputed regime.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the analysis of the justification of the conditions for the application of the disputed regime.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment when evaluating the alleged advantage derived from the disputed regime and a lack of precision in the examination of the disputed regime.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging a violation of the taxpayers’ legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ 2016 L 260, p. 61)

(2) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/24

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)

(Case T-767/16)

(2016/C 475/35)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Nanogate AG (Quierschied, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘metals’ — Application No 14 259 981

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 2361/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/33

Action brought on 13 October 2016 — VFP v Commission

(Case T-726/16)

(2016/C 462/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vlaamse Federatie van Persverkopers VZW (VFP) (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. de Bandt, J. Dewispelaere and J. Probst, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 3 June 2016, State Aid SA.42366 (2016/N) — Belgium — State compensations to bpost for the delivery of public services over 2016-2020 (1);

— refer the case back to the Commission for further investigation and a new decision;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs; and

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

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the European Commission has violated its procedural rights by adopting the contested decision and not opening the formal procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.

In this single plea it is explained that, in so far as the Commission encountered serious difficulties as regards the possible compatibility of the compensation for the press distribution Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’) with the internal market, it was under the legal obligation to adopt a decision initiating the formal investigation procedure. This single plea is divided in four limbs. In particular, it is argued that the existence of the serious difficulties results from a body of consistent evidence concerning (i) the length of the preliminary examination and the special circumstances under which the aid was granted (first limb), (ii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the qualification of the distribution of recognised newspapers and periodicals as an SGEI is insufficient (second limb), (iii) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the beneficiaries of the press distribution SGEI is incomplete (third limb) and (iv) the fact that the Commission’s analysis of the distortion of competition and the development of trade is incomplete and insufficient (fourth limb).

(1) OJ 2016, C 341, p. 5.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/54

Action brought on 11 November 2016 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle)

(Case T-796/16)

(2017/C 006/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU tridimensional mark (Representation of a greeny-brown blade of grass in a bottle) — Application for registration No 33 266

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 1248/2015-4

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 Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/46

Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger

(Case T-763/16)

(2017/C 006/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: PY (Souffelweyersheim, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action to be admissible and well founded;

and accordingly,

— declare the Mission to be liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU;

— order the payment of compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 70 000;

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law, alleging contractual breaches on the part of the Mission EUCAP Sahel Niger (‘the Mission’) which render it contractually liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU.

The applicant, a former member of staff of the Mission, alleges that the Mission committed contractual breaches in relation to internal investigation procedures and procedures for the protection of victims where a claim of harassment in the workplace has been made. Due to the Mission’s failure to act and its failure to open an internal investigation, the harassment reported by the applicant continued, intensified and resulted in substantial adverse effects on his health, leading to his emergency repatriation. It was not possible for the applicant to resume his duties before the expiry of his contract.

The applicant consequently seeks compensation for the non-material damage that he has suffered as a result of (i) being forced to endure harassment, despite having reported it, for many months, something that the Mission could have prevented, (ii) being laid off from work and (iii) the deterioration in his health and particularly the depression from which he has been suffering ever since. The applicant also seeks compensation for the financial damage resulting from the loss of his remuneration after 30 days on sick leave and from loss of the chance to have his contract of employment renewed.
2.

Second plea, alleging that the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the Parliament was unlawful, as a result of infringement of the Staff Regulations and rights recognised by internal rules governing the management of leave, and infringement of the applicants’ acquired rights. — Therefore, the two applicants addressees of the three individual contested decisions, respectively of 2 June 2016, 13 June 2016 and 12 April 2016, the first two decisions refusing to grant leave applied for by them, and the last decision accepting the application for leave made by one of them but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3,5 days, consider that those individual decisions invoke the same plea in law seeking annulment of those decisions.