ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/43

Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Steiniger v EUIPO — ista Deutschland (IST)

(Case T-80/17)

(2017/C 112/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ingo Steiniger (Nümbrecht, Germany) (represented by: K. Schulze Horn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ista Deutschland GmbH (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘IST’ — Application for registration No 10 673 812

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 2242/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of EUIPO of 24 September 2015;

— vary the contested decision in such a way that the objection is rejected in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/52

Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council

(Case T-37/17)

(2017/C 104/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, and H. Leith, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Council to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

The applicant alleges that the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon individuals and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the European Union is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/42

Action brought on 21 February 2017 — FCA US v EUIPO — Busbridge (VIPER)

(Case T-109/17)

(2017/C 121/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: FCA US LLC (City of Auburn Hills, Michigan, United States) (represented by: C. Morcom, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert Dennis Busbridge (Hookwood, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VIPER’ — EU trade mark No 3 871 101

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 554/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the Cancellation Division and of the First Board of Appeal and that the application by Mr. Busbridge be remitted to the Cancellation Division for the appropriate action;

— the Applicant also seeks an order for costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of appeal was wrong in concluding that Mr Busbridge had proved use in relation to the goods covered by the UK registration (namely ‘Sports cars’);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/43

Action brought on 18 February 2017 — Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

(Case T-110/17)

(2017/C 121/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System Co. Ltd (Changzhou, China) (represented by: Y. Melin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2146 of 7 December 2016 withdrawing the acceptance of the undertaking for two exporting producers under Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (JO 2016, L 333, p. 4), as far as the applicant is concerned; and

— order the Commission, and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission in the course of the proceedings, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one sole ground.

According to the applicant, the Commission breached Article 8(1), (9) and (10) and Article 10(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (1), and Article 13(1), (9) and (10) and Article 16(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 (2), when it invalidated undertaking invoices and then directed customs to all duties, as if no valid undertaking invoices had been issued and communicated to customs at the time the goods were declared for release in free circulation.

The applicant bases this plea on a plea of illegality of Article 3(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 (3), and Article 2(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 (4), which give to the Commission the power to declare undertaking invoices invalid.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016, L 176, p. 55).

(3) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013, L 325, p. 66).
1.

First plea in law, relating to the Commission’s unlawful conduct in relation to infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Articles 18 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, the Commission having failed to coordinate coherently EU programmes for the promotion of olive oil in third countries, as well the principle of good administration and the right to good administration laid down in Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union, the Commission having failed, according to the applicant, to adopt the measures which were required once it had become aware of the anti-competitive effects resulting from the lack of coordination of the two promotional campaigns.
—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/51

Action brought on 3 March 2017 — Kakol v Commission

(Case T-137/17)

(2017/C 144/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Danuta Kakol (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Duta, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the decisions of the selection board of 25 November 2016 and 2 May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature, pre-qualified for competition EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5, was rejected;

— Order the defendant to make payment of the amount of EUR 5 000, otherwise for any other amount, even greater, to be set by the Court in compensation for the vexatious manner in which the applicant’s candidature was handled;

— Order all duties ascribed by law to be undertaken;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs and fees of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought in essence against the decisions of 25 November 2016 and [2] May 2016 according to which the applicant’s candidature for the EPSO/AD/177/10-AUDIT2013-Administrators-D5 competition, was rejected on the ground that she did not satisfy the conditions for admissions as regards the education requirements.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a lack of delegation by the selection board as regards the decision of 2 May 2016. — The applicant submits in that regard that a number of indications show that it is not possible that the decision of 2 May 2016 was taken by the selection board.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and estoppel. — The applicant asserts that the administration gave precise assurances as regards the competition for which she had previously applied, namely competition EPSO/AD/172/09, that competition having the same admission criteria as competition EPSO? AD/177/10. In competition EPSO/AD/172/09 the selection board concluded that the applicant meets the conditions required as regards experience/professional training.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in the present case. — The applicant asserts in that regard that it is clear from the diplomas produced that she has a level of university education equal to a full cycle of at least three years, attested by a diploma relevant to the nature of the competition duties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/37

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Cristalfarma v EUIPO — Novartis (ILLUMINA)

(Case T-157/17)

(2017/C 129/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ILLUMINA’ — Application for registration No 11 934 239

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2017 in Case R 1187/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC — Alternatively, if the Commission was competent to adopt the Decision in principle, it could only lawfully do so if the criteria in Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73 EC were fulfilled. — The Decision has been adopted in breach of Article 36(1) (a). The Decision will not enhance competition in gas supply and will not enhance security of supply in Central and Eastern European countries of the EU and the Energy Community. — The Decision has been adopted in breach of Article 36(1) (b). There is no investment risk since the relevant pipeline has been in operation since July 2011. — The Decision has been adopted in Breach of Article 36(1) (e). The Decision is detrimental to competition, and to the effective functioning of the internal market in the EU and the Energy Community, as it is liable to increase the dominant position enjoyed by PJSC Gazprom and its affiliates in the relevant geographic market and to contribute to the portioning of the internal market along national lines.
1.

By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615292/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the ASK-IT project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the ASK-IT project, a sum of EUR 211 185,95. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 168/32

Action brought on 4 April 2017 — ZGS v EUIPO (Schülerhilfe1)

(Case T-209/17)

(2017/C 168/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ZGS Bildungs-GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: T. Remmerbach, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Schülerhilfe1’ — Application No 15 113 038

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 1789/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by ZGS Bildungs-GmbH.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/38

Action brought on 29 March 2017 — QD v EUIPO

(Case T-199/17)

(2017/C 161/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: QD (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of EUIPO of 2 June 2016, notified to the applicant on 3 June 2016, to refuse the second renewal of the applicant’s contract as a temporary Agent pursuant to Article 2(f) CEOS; and

— order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs

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 an infringement of the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Article 110 SR, Article 2(f) and 8 CEOS.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty and its duty of care.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR)).

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the requirements of Regulation 45/2001 (1), especially of Article 27(1) and (2)(b).

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that EUIPO breached the legitimate expectations of the applicant.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 008, 2001, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/38

Action brought on 19 April 2017 — Siberian Vodka v EUIPO — Friedr. Schwarze (DIAMOND ICE)

(Case T-234/17)

(2017/C 195/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Siberian Vodka AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Friedr. Schwarze GmbH & Co. KG (Oelde, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘DIAMOND ICE’ — International registration No 1 211 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 1171/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 February 2017 in the appeal proceedings R 1171/2016-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/381 of 3 March 2017 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 34) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/374 of 3 March 2017 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2017 L 58, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provision in Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90), relating to the substantive requirements for formal communication laid down in that article.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/21

Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

(Case T-223/17)

(2017/C 202/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS’ — European Union trade mark No 3 383 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2522/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action in its entirety;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/33

Action brought on 3 May 2017 — RE v Commission

(Case T-257/17)

(2017/C 221/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RE (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the annulment of the Security Directorate’s implied decision tacitly rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents of 20 January 2017;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant a fair and equitable compensation for non-material damages from the unlawful refusal to treat his access to documents application in violation of the provision of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1); and,

— order the defendant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

With the present application, the applicant asks for the annulment of the aforementioned contested implied decision for two reasons: firstly the failure of the contested decision to state reasons as regards the non-disclosure of the 15 documents requested by the applicant, which were not mentioned in the decision of 22 December 2016 that rejected the applicant’s initial request for access to documents; and secondly, the lack of, or, in any case, the erroneous justification for the non-disclosure of the other documents, if it were to be considered that the reasoning of the decision of 22 December 2016 rejecting the applicant’s initial request for access is incorporated in the contested implied decision.

Finally, the applicant requests the award of appropriate compensation for the moral damage he incurred, which stemmed from the administration’s persistent delays and the unlawful refusal to grant him access to the documents in question, in violation of the provisions of Regulation 1049/2001.

(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 L 145, 2001, p. 43)
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and errors of assessment and interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials committed by the Council by adopting the contested decisions.
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed adequately to consult with the applicant prior to the re-designation, and the applicant has not been afforded a proper or fair opportunity either to correct errors or produce information relating to his personal circumstances.