ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/31

Action brought on 25 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v EIF

(Case T-320/17)

(2017/C 256/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C-N. Dede, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Fund (EIF)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s award decision disclosed to the applicants on 16 March 2017 regarding the tender filed by the applicants in response to the open procurement procedure (reference 2016-MIBO_IPA_PPI-002) by which they were informed that their bid had not been ranked as the most economically advantageous tender;

— order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages reaching the amount of EUR 100 000 (one hundred thousand Euros); and

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the the defendant infringed the EU law on public procurement, the principles of transparency and the provisions of the directives on public procurement, together with the EIF Practical Guide, by not communicating to the applicants the scores awarded in each award criterion to the winning tender and a detailed analysis of the strong and weak points of their tender in relation to those of the winning tender. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes the principle of necessity — The applicants first put forward that the contested decision exceeds the narrow scope of the Commission’s investigation as that scope was defined in the Statement of Objections (‘SO’), the Oral Hearing, the State-of-Play meeting, and in previous requests for information (‘RFI’s’), both in terms of duration of the alleged abuse and potential theories of harm being pursued by the Commission. — They further allege that the far-reaching questions contained in the contested decision cannot be characterised as follow-up questions that would merely seek clarifications in relation to arguments made by them in the SO response and during the Oral Hearing, but as entirely new, unwarranted requests. — Further, according to the applicants, the contested decision seeks to follow-up on points that concern their responses to RFIs adopted, in some instances, more than five years ago, and pertaining to facts that occurred ten years or more ago. The applicants claim that, were the additional information now requested truly necessary for the Commission to pursue its investigation, they would legitimately have expected that he Commission would at the very least have sought such information and clarifications prior to the SO’s adoption in December 2015, and not in early 2017. — Further, according to the applicants, the contested decision requests them to perform a significant amount of work on behalf of the Commission, including processing data to be provided in a specific format. — Finally, the applicants put forward that the Commission cannot impose, under the threat of fines, a burden seemingly designed to allow the applicants to substantiate arguments made by them in the SO Response.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/55

Action brought on 4 July 2017 — Mendes v EUIPO — Actial Farmaceutica (VSL#3)

(Case T-419/17)

(2017/C 277/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mendes SA (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Carpineti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Actial Farmaceutica Srl (Rome, Italy)

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 ‘VSL#3’ — European Union trade mark No 1 437 789

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2017 in Case R 1306/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in accordance with and for the purposes of Article 51(1)(b) EUTMR;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of EUIPO in accordance with and for the purposes of Article 51(1)(c) EUTMR;

— in any event, order that the applicant should be reimbursed in full for the costs of the proceedings, or at least that each party should bear its own costs in full.

Plea in law
5.

Capo d’Anzio consistently and conscientiously reported those difficulties, which could not be attributed to it, finally requesting, by memorandum of 2 November 2015 and subsequent memorandum of 7 December 2015, that account be taken of those difficulties when decisions relating to the contract were being taken, requesting a meeting to enable it to explain its reasoning and expressly undertaking, in any event, to repay the pre-financing in the event of being permanently unable to furnish a report on the project as requested.
—

annul Commission’s decision C(2017) 2914 final, dated 2 May 2017, refusing to review the Commission decision C(2016)5644 granting an authorization for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under regulation (EC) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/54

Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

(Case T-435/17)

(2017/C 283/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grendene (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J. L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hipanema (Paris, France)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘HIPANEMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 154 586

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 629/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and replace it with a decision recognising the affinity between the goods covered by the mark applied for and those protected by the opponent’s earlier marks, to the extent necessary in order to acknowledge a similarity between those goods within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark;

— once that similarity between the goods is acknowledged, compare the signs at issue from a verbal perspective, which was not done either during the opposition proceedings or during the administrative action, conclude that the signs at issue are identical phonetically and aurally and similar graphically, hold that peaceful coexistence between the marks at issue is impossible and, lastly, reject the application for protection in the European Union of international trademark No 1 154 586 ‘HIPANEMA’, Class 14. Or, if the General Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, remit the question to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, subject to the requirement that it acknowledge the similarity between the marks at issue.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 318/13

Action brought on 6 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and others v Commission

(Case T-361/17)

(2017/C 318/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Eco-Bat Technologies Ltd (Matlock, United Kingdom), Berzelius Metall GmbH (Braubach, Germany) and Société Traitements Chimiques des Métaux (STCM) (Bazoches-les-Gallerandes, France) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC, I. Vandenborre and S. Dionnet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 2(1)(b) of Commission Decision C(2017) 900 final as amended on 6 April 2017 by Decision C(2017)2223 final of 6 April 2017, in Case AT.40018 — Car battery recycling and reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant to take into account a representative value of purchases during the infringement period and the correct duration of the applicant’s participation in the infringement’s manifestations in France, and remove the 10 % increment based on the application of Point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 that the Commission breached the principle of good administration and the applicant’s rights of defence by identifying the applicant’s value of purchases to be used as a basis for the fine calculation for the first time in the contested decision.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality by using the applicant’s value of purchases in 2011 as reference in the calculation of the fine.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of personal responsibility, equal treatment and proportionality and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the applicant’s more limited involvement in the cartel’s manifestations in France.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the duty to state reasons and the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by failing to adequately justify the application of Point 37 of the Guidelines and the exact fine increase applied.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by treating purchase cartels different from sales cartels.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence by applying a fine increase pursuant to Point 37 of the Guidelines without referencing it in the Statement of Objections and failing to issue a supplementary Statement of Objections and organise a new hearing.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of good administration by not expressing its intention to apply Point 37 of the Guidelines at an earlier stage of the administrative procedure.

(1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/38

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — Sensotek v EUIPO — Senso Tecnologie (sensotek)

(Case T-470/17)

(2017/C 309/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sensotek GmbH (Reichenbach an der Fils, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senso Tecnologie Srl (Rome, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘sensotek’ — Application for registration No 10 648 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1953/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence — Lastly, the applicant submits that it was only several years after the proceedings had been brought that it was granted access to crucial documents, which, it maintains, had been partially redacted. — The applicant also maintains that it had no legal obligation to tender or to observe strictly the tendering rules in the project. — In addition, the applicant asserts that it bears no liability for the actions of the European Union’s project partner.
1.

First plea in law: infringement of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) by reason of deviation from the specified calculation methodology — The applicant claims that, under Article 19(1)(b), the methodology laid down in Annex V, Part C, to Directive 2009/28/EC is to be used where actual values are referred to in order to calculate an emissions factor. In accordance with Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC, emissions from the fuel in use (eu) are taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids. The contested communication requires the voluntary certification systems to use a calculation deviating from Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC, which also includes emissions from fuel use, within a set deadline. — The deviation from Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC infringes the procedural requirements of that directive. An adjustment of the methodology in Annex V to the directive at all times requires, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 19(7) of the directive, compliance with the procedure set out in Article 25(4) of the directive. That provision in turn refers to Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC, (2) having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof, according to which a Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny Committee is to be convened and review by the European Parliament and Council must take place. The form of an informal communication at short notice should not have been chosen.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of publicity, transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination and of Articles 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, 8(a) of the Conditions of Employment and 1a.1.1 of the Staff Rules and of Articles 2 TEU and 3 TEU and 20 and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the application is of the view that he did not have the opportunity of submitting his application for the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board while Mr [X] did have that opportunity.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 338/21

Action brought on 25 August 2017 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS finance)

(Case T-583/17)

(2017/C 338/24)

Language in which the application was brought: German

Parties

Applicant: EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IOS Finance EFC, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘IOS FINANCE’ — EU trade mark No 12 544 061

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition Proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2017 in Case R 2262/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, based on the requirement for proportionality in the infringement of fundamental rights. The applicant is of the view that the disputed measures ought to be invalidated since they are disproportionate in the light of the objective stated and they constitute excessive interference in the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, enshrined in Articles 16 and 17 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The disproportion lies in the fact that the measures cover all influential economic activity without any other criterion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/36

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — SFP Asset Management and Others v SRB

(Case T-502/17)

(2017/C 347/45)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: SFP Asset management and Others (Geneva, Switzerland), Twenty First Trade Inc. (Panama, Panama), Merlos Infor, S.L. (Badalona, Spain) (represented by: J. Gálvez Pascual, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

— consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/21

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Grúas Roxu v Commission and SRB

(Case T-517/17)

(2017/C 357/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grúas Roxu, S.A. (Meres, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the following measures:

— Decision (SRB/EES/2017/08) of the Single Resolution Board agreed at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/32

Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-588/17)

(2017/C 369/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

— for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement, comprising: — 2 184 271,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made; — all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising: — all principal and interest for each instalment; — contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

— For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default if its contractual obligations under Article 3.01 and 4.01 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement.
—

Acknowledge the lodging of the action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 made by the Single Resolution Board in its Expanded Executive Session of 7 June 2017, adopting the resolution scheme concerning the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A., in compliance with the provisions of Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 and, after having allowed access to all the documents in the file and given the possibility of making further claims, annul or revoke the contested decision, reinstating in full the legal effect of the applicant’s economic rights, in accordance with the requirements of full compensation.