ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/29

Action brought on 29 August 2014 — JP Divver Holding Company v OHIM (EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE)

(Case T-642/14)

(2014/C 431/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JP Divver Holding Company Ltd (Newry, Ireland) (represented by: A. Franke, E. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘EQUIPMENT FOR LIFE’

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 June 2014 in Case R 64/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including the applicant on the lists of persons, entities and bodies subject to restrictive measures in view of the situation in Ukraine.
—

The applicant claims in that regard that, in tersely confirming in the contested decision that the error in the title of the amending decision of 31 December 2012 had no effect on the content of the decision itself or on the implementation of the programme, the Commission neglected to take into consideration the relevance of the following circumstances: (i) the spending decisions adopted by the Region had to be checked beforehand by the Court of Auditors; (ii) four months had elapsed between the correction being announced and the correction being implemented, without any explanation being provided; (iii) that fact had the potential to arouse the suspicion that the correction to be made was of greater importance than a correction supposedly relating only to the title of the decision of 31 December 2012; and (iv) the Court of Auditors had confirmed that the course of action taken by the Region, which refrained from adopting the commitments until the correction was officially recognised (28 March 2013), was correct, thus giving it to be understood that the opposite course of action would not have been correct.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/28

Action brought on 4 July 2014 — Sweden v Commission

(Case T-521/14)

(2014/C 431/50)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and K. Sparrman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that the European Commission, by failing to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties, has infringed Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation (1), the Commission is to adopt delegated acts to specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties by 13 December 2013 at the latest. The applicant submits that, by failing to adopt such delegated acts, the Commission has failed to take measures which it is obliged by law to take. The applicant has requested the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation, but in the Commission’s reply, in the view of the applicant, no position was defined as regards that request within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 265 TFEU. The applicant claims that, in addition, as at the time of the application, the Commission has not adopted any measures to end the alleged failure to act. In the view of the applicant, the Commission has a basis for specifying scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties and an application of those criteria which, under the second and third subparagraphs of Article 5(3) of the Biocides Regulation, are to apply until the Commission has adopted delegated acts containing criteria for endocrine-disrupting substances.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/57

Appeal brought on 5 December 2014 by Eric Vanhalewyn against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS

(Case T-792/14 P)

(2015/C 046/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Eric Vanhalewyn (Grand Baie, Mauritius) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS;

— give judgment itself: — annulling the contested decision; — ordering the EEAS to pay the costs of both proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It results from the appeal that the appellant applies to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2014 in Case F-101/13, Osorio and Others v EEAS.

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) held, first, that the failure, by the EEAS, to adopt the general provisions (‘GP’) of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the regulations’) was justified by the fact that the EEAS was still, as regards the application of that provision, in an adjustment period and, secondly, that the failure to fulfil the obligation to adopt the GP can be successfully invoked by the appellant only where he shows that the EEAS applied that provision arbitrarily.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the EEAS had correctly reasoned the contested decision although the reasons which led the EEAS to diverge from the negative opinion of the Staff Committee were not set out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/36

Action brought on 21 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-771/14)

(2015/C 065/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the sum of EUR 2 96 149,77, which the Commission paid to the applicant in respect of the DOC@HAND project, constitutes eligible costs and that accordingly the applicant is under no obligation to repay that sum as unduly paid; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the agreement No 508015 for the performance of the DOC@HAND project, under Article 272 TFEU. In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, contrary to the terms of that agreement, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs.

For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the Commission relies on wholly unfounded and in any event unproven grounds in order to reject almost all the costs incurred by ANKO as being ineligible and to seek the repayment of the sum paid to ΑΝΚΟ in respect of the DOC@HAND project. The applicant maintains, second, that the Commission, in rejecting 99,59 % of the contribution it is obliged to pay, because that allegedly did not correspond to eligible costs, which the applicant incurred for the requirements of the project, infringes the principles of the prohibition of abuse of rights and of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 56/26

Action brought on 17 December 2014 — Tayto Group v OHIM — MIP Metro (REAL HAND COOKED)

(Case T-816/14)

(2015/C 056/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tayto Group Ltd (Craigavon, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘REAL HAND COOKED’ — Community trade mark application No 9 0 62 688

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 842/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission

(Case T-783/14)

(2015/C 073/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested act; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to adjust the minimum import price for imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission violated Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 597/2009 (2) by adjusting the minimum import price without assessing whether the adjusted minimum import price was adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/51

Action brought on 22 December 2014 — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)

(Case T-844/14)

(2015/C 065/69)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Mark 1’ — Application No 12 052 461

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 648/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 127/29

Action brought on 28 November 2014 — Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v OHIM — Meissen Keramik (MEISSEN)

(Case T-789/14)

(2015/C 127/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH (Meißen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meissen Keramik GmbH (Meißen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MEISSEN’ — Application No 9 413 527

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2014 in Cases R 1182/2013-4 and R 1245/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

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

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

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/32

Action brought on 24 December 2014 — August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)

(Case T-845/14)

(2015/C 089/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: August Brötje GmbH (Rastede, Germany) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘HydroComfort’ — Application No 12 233 763

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1302/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 81/24

Action brought on 13 January 2015 — Banco Santander and Santusa v Commission

(Case T-12/15)

(2015/C 081/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Banco Santander, SA (Santander, Spain) and Santusa Holding, SL (Boadilla del Monte, Spain) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and J. Panero Rivas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— admit and uphold the grounds for annulment set out in this application;

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the new administrative interpretation of Article 12 TRLIS [texto refundido de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades (consolidated version of the Spanish law on corporate tax)] adopted by the Spanish administration must be regarded as State aid which is incompatible with the internal market;

— annul Article 4.1 of the contested decision in so far as it requires the Kingdom of Spain to put an end to the alleged aid scheme as described in Article 1;

— annul parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 4 of the contested decision in so far as they require the Kingdom of Spain to recover the amounts considered by the Commission to be State aid;

— in the alternative, limit the scope of the recovery obligation imposed on the Kingdom of Spain in Article 4.2 of the contested decision in the same terms as in the First and Second Decisions; and

— order to the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-826/14 Spain v Commission.

The applicants claim, in particular, that the Commission erred in law in the legal classification of the measure as State aid, in the identification of the beneficiary of the measure and in the characterisation of the administrative interpretation as State aid distinct from that examined in the Commission’s decisions, and that it breached the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of estoppel and of legal certainty.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Market Watch v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (MITOCHRON)

(Case T-62/15)

(2015/C 107/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Market Watch Franchise & Consulting, Inc. (Freeport, Bahamas) (represented by: J. Korab, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MITOCHRON’ — Application for registration No 11 200 078

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2014 in Case R 508/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Admit the complaint;

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/32

Action brought on 9 January 2015 — Ball Europe v OHIM — Crown Hellas Can

(Case T-9/15)

(2015/C 089/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ball Europe GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Renck, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crown Hellas Can SA (Athens, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the design at issue: the applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 230 990-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 1408/2012-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and — in the event of a formal intervention — also the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/38

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM — Nissan Jidosha (Land Glider)

(Case T-71/15)

(2015/C 118/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa-ken, Japan)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Land Glider’ — Community trade mark application No 8 3 24 196

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2014 in Case R 1415/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/39

Action brought on 17 February 2015 — ROD Leichtmetallräder v OHIM — Rodi TR (ROD)

(Case T-75/15)

(2015/C 118/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ROD Leichtmetallräder GmbH (Weiden in der Oberpfalz, Germany) (represented by: J. Hellenbrand and J. Biener, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rodi TR, SL (Lleida, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘ROD’ — Community trade mark No 5 6 94 989

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2014 in Case R 281/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Annul the decision of OHIM’s Cancellation Division of 22 November 2013;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as well as the costs of the proceedings before OHMI’s Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 65(2) in connection with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 138/59

Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

(Case T-87/15)

(2015/C 138/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration of a Community trade mark No 11 867 215

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1797/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;

— allow the community trade mark application No 11 867 215 to proceed to publication;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, amend Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39780 — Envelopes), (i) setting the fine imposed on TOMPLA at least 55 % below the legal ceiling (Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003) — or, failing that, a percentage which the Court deems appropriate — so as thereby to restore the balance between that fine and the fines imposed on Bong and Hamelin, and (ii) additionally reduce the fine imposed by at least 33 % — or, failing that, by a percentage which the Court deems appropriate — in order to take account of the fine imposed by the Comisión Nacional de la Competencia (CNC) in its Decision of 25 March 2013 in case 5/0316/10, Sobres de Papel; and
—

annul the Commission’s Implementing Decision of 16 December 2014, rejecting as unfounded the applicant’s referral for legality review of 23 October 2014, and upholding the decision of 23 September 2014 of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, regarding the ineligibility of remuneration paid to the applicant’s partners/shareholders as staff costs in two projects successfully executed by the applicant, namely ‘Go Green — Green Business is smart Business’ project (Agreement No. 510424-LLP-1-2010-1-GR-LEONARDO-LMP) and ‘LadybizIT’ project (Agreement No. 2011-3052-518310-LLP-1-2011-1-GR-LEONARDO-LAM), and determine eligible as staff costs in the project concerned the relevant costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou, Mr Pavlos Aravantinos, and Mr Karamanlis, or, in the alternative, determine solely the costs corresponding to the ‘additional’ services provided by Ms Olga Stavropoulou and Mr Pavlos Aravantinos in the two projects in question eligible under Article II.14 of the grant agreement and its annex III and payable to the applicant;