ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 25 October 2021 — NJ v Commission

(Case T-693/21)

(2022/C 37/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: NJ (represented by: C. Maczkovics, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, in accordance with Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission unlawfully failed to act on its complaint of 19 April 2018 on State aid measure SA.50952(2018FC);

— order the Commission to take a position on the complaint registered under number SA.50952(2018FC) without delay;

— order the Commission to pay the whole costs, including those incurred by the applicant, even if, after the introduction of the present action, the Commission takes the measures that, according to the General Court, would make the action without object, or if the General Court rejects the application as inadmissible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated its obligations under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In particular, it alleges the violation of Article 265 TFEU, as well as Article 12(1), second paragraph, of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) the requirement of diligent and impartial examination, the principle of sound administration and the principle of adoption of decisions in a reasonable time, because the Commission has not adopted any decision pursuant to Article 4(2), (3) or (4) of Regulation 2015/1589 more than three years and six months after the applicant lodged its complaint on State aid measure SA.50952(2018FC). The applicant argues that the Commission should have adopted such a decision within a period of twelve months, in conformity with its Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures, (2) or at least within a reasonable time.

(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).

(2) Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures (OJ 2009 C 136, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 December 2021 — Brobet v EUIPO — Efbet Partners (efbet)

(Case T-772/21)

(2022/C 73/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Brobet ltd. (Ta'Xbiex, Malta) (represented by: F. Bojinova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Efbet Partners OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark figurative mark efbet — European Union trade mark No 10 818 748

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2021 in Case R 624/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision, namely the part of the section 3 in which the appeal of Brobet Limited had been dismissed with respect to the revocation of the same party’s rights in EUTM No. 010818748 for the following goods and services: Computer interfaces; Recorded computer software, which can be transferred to another currier; Electronic game equipment; and the services in class 9 and Entertainment (except gambling); Information services in the field of entertainment (except gambling); Gaming (except gambling) in class 41;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the present action of annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement, alternatively, of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Fourth part, alleging breach of the essential principles and values guiding the European Union’s action on the international scene, since:

first, in breach of the right of peoples to respect for their national unity, Decision 2019/441 denies the existence of the Sahrawi people by using the expressions ‘the people of Western Sahara’ and ‘the people concerned’ instead;

second, in breach of the right of peoples to dispose freely of their natural resources, Decision 2019/441 concludes an international agreement that organises, without the consent of the Sahrawi people, the exploitation of its fishery resources by EU vessels;

third, Decision 2019/441 concludes an international agreement applicable to occupied Western Sahara, with the Kingdom of Morocco, in the context of the latter’s policy of annexation with regard to that territory and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 December 2021 — Lila Rossa Engros v EUIPO (LiLAC)

(Case T-780/21)

(2022/C 95/56)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Lila Rossa Engros SRL (Voluntari, Romania) (represented by: O. Anghel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the black EU figurative mark LiLAC — Application for registration No 18 243 487

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2021 in Case R 441/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action;

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for registration No 18 243 487 for the mark LiLAC in respect of all the goods and services applied for;

— 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 5 November 2021 — Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung v EMA

(Case T-713/21)

(2022/C 73/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Agentur für Globale Gesundheitsverantwortung (Elsbethen, Austria) (represented by: A. Steindl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the EMA’s decision of 21 September 2021 (EMA/468888/2021) rejecting the applicant’s appeal of 13 August 2021 against the EMA’s decision of 28 July 2021 (EMA/421922/2021);

— grant access to the ‘c4591001-interim-ado-report-body’ study on the basis of which the EMA’s Assessment Report EMA/CHMP/282047/2021 Rev. 1 of 22 July 2021 or Commission Implementing Decision C(2021) 4034 (final) of 31 May 2021 were adopted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law concerning the classification of anonymised data records of study C4591001 in respect of US participants in the study as personal data under Regulation 2018/7125. (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law by the EMA in finding that study C4591001 has not been finalised as regards a change in the paediatric indication and is consistent with ‘EMA Policy(0070) on Clinical Data Publication’ (EMA/144064/2019).

3. Third plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law in the finding that the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2) (‘protection of commercial interests of a natural or legal person, including intellectual property’) is applicable.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging invalidity by reason of an error of law in the finding that there is no overriding public interest pursuant to the last sentence of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2) 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 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 January 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Doosan Machine Tools (PUMA)

(Case T-4/22)

(2022/C 109/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Doosan Machine Tools Co. Ltd (Seongsan-gu, Changwon-si, South Korea)

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 PUMA — Application for registration No 11 376 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2021 in Case R 1677/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Doosan Machine Tools Co., Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors of law and facts committed by the Commission in the interpretation, application, and reasoning of the legal requirements for adoption of the Decision under Article 8(5)(a) EUMR. — The Decision is wrong in ignoring that the Hold-Separate Commitments adopted and notified by Illumina to the Commission after Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL Inc.’s shares prevented the Parties from implementing the concentration within the meaning of Article 7 EUMR. — The Decision contains no meaningful discussion of the conditions of competition existing at the time of its adoption and fails to demonstrate how Illumina’s acquisition of GRAIL Inc.’s shares had reduced effective competition or would reduce effective competition before the Commission could adopt a final decision on the substance. — The Decision fails to identify any urgency that would justify the adoption of interim measures since nothing material in terms of effects on competition in the affected markets could happen during the few months between the adoption of the Decision and the adoption of the substantive decision on the concentration. — The Decision is vitiated by an error of law in assuming that under Article 8(5)(a) EUMR the Commission is entitled to adopt interim measures with a view to ensuring the effectiveness of a hypothetical future decision under Article 8(4) EUMR. — The imposition of a particular obligation on GRAIL is incompatible with Article 8(5)(a) EUMR; it is not necessary or proportionate.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 February 2022 — Granini France v EUIPO — Pichler (Joro)

(Case T-68/22)

(2022/C 128/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Granini France (Mâcon, France) (represented by: J. Wachsmuth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josef Pichler (St. Leonhard in Passeier, Italy)

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 EU word mark Joro — Application for registration No 18 136 261

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2021 in Case R 2336/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision to the effect that the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 November 2020 is annulled in so far as it rejected the opposition in respect of: Ginseng liquor; Japanese liquor flavoured with Japanese plum extracts; Red ginseng liquor; Hulless barley liquor; Tonic liquor flavoured with japanese plum extracts (umeshu); Alcoholic cocktail mixes; Alcoholic cocktails containing milk; Alcoholic cocktails in the form of chilled gelatins; Alcoholic fruit cocktail drinks; Alcoholic tea-based beverages; Alcoholic carbonated beverages, except beer; Pre-mixed alcoholic beverages; Aperitifs; Japanese sweet grape wine containing extracts of ginseng and cinchona bark; Black raspberry wine [Bokbunjaju]; Alcoholic beverages of fruit; Wine coolers [drinks]; Fruit extracts, alcoholic and that the EU trade mark application No 18 136 261 is also rejected in respect of those goods;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)

(Case T-51/22)

(2022/C 119/78)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a citrus press), claiming the colours (yellow Pantone 1235 C; green NCS S 3050-G50Y) — Application for registration No 18 005 754

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2021 in Case R 281/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 165(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 36 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 7 of Decision 2020-7 of the Presidium of the Boards of Appeal concerning the organisation of the Boards;
—

The applicant alleges in this regard infringement of the principle of good administration and diligence of the administrative action relating to the expenditure verification carried out by Ernst & Young (EY); infringement of the rights of the defence relating to the expenditure verification carried out by EY; infringement of the principle of good administration by failing to have regard to the duty of impartiality in the context of the administrative action; and incorrect interpretation of the contract in the report made by EY.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2022 — Romedor Pharma v EUIPO — Perfect Care Distribution (CERVIRON Perfect Care)

(Case T-38/22)

(2022/C 138/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Romedor Pharma SRL (Focşani, Romania) (represented by: E. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perfect Care Distribution (Bucharest, Romania)

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: EU word mark CERVIRON PERFECT CARE — EU trade mark No 18 064 805

Procedure before EUIPO: proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 November 2021 in Case R 521/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action as formulated and reasoned;

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in respect of EU trade mark No 18 064 805.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Amisi Kumba v Council

(Case T-92/22)

(2022/C 148/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 2 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 February 2022 — Ramazani Shadary v Council

(Case T-93/22)

(2022/C 148/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 9 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
1.

First plea in law, alleging improper assessment of information provided by the applicants and failure to investigate circumstances described in the complaint, that on 21 June 2020 was submitted by the applicants to the Commission concerning illegal state aid provided to the Lithuanian public service broadcaster — VšĮ ‘Lietuvos Nacionalinis Radijas ir Televizija’, with due diligence, which resulted in complete disregard of factual situation and errors of law in the Letter adopted by the Commission. Such failure amounted to infringement of an essential procedural requirement and substantive provisions regulating state aid control mechanism established in Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of TFEU. In particular, the Commission’s improper assessment is evidenced by the following flaws that vitiate the Letter: (i) the Commission failed to consider and compare compatibility of scheme existing prior 10 December 1994 with the scheme existing after 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on Lithuanian National Radio and Television of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter ‘Law on LRT’) with the required due diligence and required legal standard and, hence, made an essential procedural infringement; (ii) the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2015 and 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission; (iii) the Commission breached Articles 107(1) and 108(3) TFEU by failing to recognise that 2020 changes of the Law on LRT constitute alterations to state aid measure, which should be coordinated with the Commission.
Action brought on 25 February 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-104/22)

(2022/C 158/15)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021 reviewing the objections raised by Hungary against disclosure, in relation to the confirmatory application GESTDEM 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from Hungary;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision, the Commission granted partial public access to the documents requested by the applicant, even though the Hungarian authorities had expressly invoked the exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) and the Commission had accepted this in the present case until the confirmatory application was made.

The Hungarian government claims that the Commission’s interpretation in the contested decision is not only contrary to the Commission’s previous practice and the case-law of the Court of Justice, but is also seriously detrimental to cooperation between the Commission and the managing authorities of the Member States. The Hungarian government — in addition to arguing that there is decision-making of an EU institution in relation to the amendment of operational programmes, since the Commission approves those amendments, and that the exception in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is therefore applicable — submits that the particularity of the present procedure is that, under the system of shared management, the decision taken by the Member State is in fact subject to the strict supervision of the Commission. Although, formally, it is a decision of a Member State authority, the Commission has a demonstrable influence over it, and it is therefore all the more unacceptable that the exception in question does not protect such a decision. The exception laid down in Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is also intended to protect the decision-making of Member State authorities.

(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 2001 L 145, p. 43).