ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/28

Action brought on 29 January 2014 — Good Luck Shipping v Council

(Case T-64/14)

2014/C 93/49

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Good Luck Shipping LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC (Queen's Counsel), M. Lester, Barrister and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

— Declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP (1) of 10 October 2013 and Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 (2) of 10 October 2013 (‘the October Measures’);

— Order the defendant 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 October Measures should be declared inapplicable in so far as they apply to the applicant, and they have no proper legal basis.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations and the principles of finality, legal certainty, non bis in idem, res judicata, and non-discrimination.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the applicant’s rights of defence.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has manifestly erred in its assessment that any of the listing criteria are fulfilled as regards the applicant, and has failed to provide any evidence justifying the applicant’s designation.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures violate the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to respect for reputation and property.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council has abused its powers by enacting the contested measures; targeting the applicant in circumvention of a Court judgment is not a proper use of its powers.

(1) Council Decision 2013/497/CFSP of 10 October 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 46)

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 971/2013 of 10 October 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 272, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of equal treatment, Articles 20, 21 and 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in so far as the reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union introduces dramatic and savage cuts to the right to annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country. The applicants claim that the contested regulation does not take into account the specific situation of those officials and servants.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and law in concluding that it would have been more advantageous for the Slovak tax authorities to initiate a bankruptcy procedure (recitals 88-119 of the contested decision).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/26

Action brought on 28 January 2014 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Balaguer (icexpresso + energy coffee)

(Case T-61/14)

2014/C 129/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luis Yus Balaguer (Movera, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 given in Case R 821/2013-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark containing the verbal elements ‘icexpresso + energy coffee’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 30, 32 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 950 403

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The earlier marks: CTM registrations Nos 8 445 711, 8 815 722 and 8 815 748 for goods in Classes 5 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/34

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)

(Case T-123/14)

2014/C 129/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2013 given in Case R 314/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘AquaPerfect’ for the goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 10 330 454

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 9 444 118 of the word mark ‘waterPerfect’ for goods in Class 7

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/52

Action brought on 11 February 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of a coloured pattern)

(Case T-94/14)

2014/C 135/66

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 November 2013 given in Case R 495/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of a coloured pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 28, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 177 631

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/53

Action brought on 24 February 2014 — Albis Plastic v OHIM — IQAP Masterbatch Group (ALCOLOR)

(Case T-132/14)

2014/C 135/69

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Albis Plastic GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL (Masíes de Roda, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 December 2013 in Case R 1015/2012-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘ALCOLOR’ for goods and services in Class 1 — Community trade mark No 3 073 889

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: IQAP Masterbatch Group, SL

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘ALCOLOR’ for goods in Class 2, and company name ‘ALCOLOR’ used in Spain the course of trade for ‘dyestuffs’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and its implementing provisions
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/33

Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)

(Case T-194/14)

2014/C 151/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bristol Global Co. Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Bozhinova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bridgestone Corp. (Tokyo, Japan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 916/2013-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘AEROSTONE’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 10 066 736

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trademarks registrations of the word marks ‘STONE’ for goods in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 and ‘BRIDGESTONE’ for goods in Class 12; well-known trade mark and non-registered sign containing verbal element ‘BRIDGESTONE’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.
1.

First plea in law: the European Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 36 of the Act of Accession (Annex VII, point 1), which forms an integral part of the Treaty of Accession of the Croation Republic to the European Union concluded between the Croation Republic and the Member States of the European Union [Narodne novine — Međunarodni ugovori no 2/12 (Official Journal — International Treaties)], in failing to prevent the derogation from the legislation establishing and governing the profession of bailiff, which the Republic of Croatia had adopted during the negotiations on accession to the European Union. Article 36 of the Act of Accession tasks the Commission with monitoring the commitments entered into by the Republic of Croatia during the negotiations on accession to the European Union and, accordingly, the legal obligations assumed by the Republic of Croatia to establish a bailiff service and to ensure the full implementation of that service in the Croatian legal order by 1 January 2012 at the latest. However, the European Commission does not have the power to allow any unilateral amendment of the obligations thus entered into by the Republic of Croatia.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/32

Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Vassiliou v Commission and ECB

(Case T-151/14)

2014/C 159/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Costas Vassiliou (Kinshasa, Congo) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/34

Action brought 19 March 2014 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Flow Mechanisms (ELIKA)

(Case T-182/14)

2014/C 159/47

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Marzocchi Pompe SpA (Casalecchio di Reno, Italy) (represented by: M. Bovesi, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Settima Flow Mechanisms (Grossolengo, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 December 2013 (Case R 428/2013-2) and declare the mark ELIKA valid in respect of all the goods for which it was registered;

— take such other measures as the Court may deem appropriate;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including those borne by Marzocchi Pompe SpA, in accordance with Article 87(2), read in conjunction with Articles 91(b) and 132(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: International registration extended to the European Union of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘ELIKA’ for goods in Class 7 — Community mark No 1 051 270

Proprietor of the Community mark: Marzocchi Pompe SpA

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Settima Flow Mechanisms

Ground for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/35

Action brought on 5 May 2014 — Seca Benelux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-311/14)

2014/C 194/46

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Seca Benelux SPRL (Brussels, Belgium); Groupe Seca SA (Valenciennes, France); and Seca Ingénierie SAS (Valenciennes) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Parliament of 21 February 2014 not to retain the bid it submitted for the award of the contract for technical management of the buildings of the European Parliament in Strasbourg (Call for tenders No INLO.AO-2013-003-STR-UGIMS-03) and to grant the contract to another tenderer;

— before making its ruling, order the Parliament to produce the following documents: — the list of the main similar services supplied by the other tenderer over the previous three years, stating their amount, date and recipient, public or private; — the document(s) showing the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer in order to carry out the contract and including the information required on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions; — the documents(s) showing that the Parliament in fact checked whether the academic and professional qualifications of the personnel put forward by the tenderer for the contract which it had received were indeed compatible with the contract documentation, in particular on pages 11 to 27 of the technical specifications and in the minutes of the required visit of the premises and answers to the tenderers’ questions;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a failure to verify the selection criteria in breach of the rules of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and Article 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (2), of the procurement documents and the principle of sound administration.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the tenderers’ technical ability, in breach of Article 110(1) of Regulation No 966/2012, Articles 146(2) and 148 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012, the rules set out in the procurement documents, and the principles of sound administration and equal treatment of tenderers.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/38

Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt v OHIM (Rauschbrille)

(Case T-319/14)

2014/C 212/49

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Drogenhilfe Köln Projekt gGmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by V. Schoene, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 January 2014 in Case R 1356/2013-1 and refer the case back to OHIM for reconsideration

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Rauschbrille’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 44

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
—

It is submitted in this connection that, contrary to Regulation No 1224/2009, which establishes a gradated penalty system, the contested decision requires the automatic suspension of fishing permits in the event of a serious infringement and the definitive withdrawal of such permits in the event of repeated infringements. The contested decision therefore replaces the provisions of the regulation with a different and much more punitive system of automatic and irrevocable penalties. Furthermore, the penalty system imposed by the action plan appears to be in serious breach of the principle that penalties should be gradated, the principle that such penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement and the principle that penalties should be applied to the offender alone, since the person holding the permit is penalised regardless of the identity of the person who has actually committed the offence.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission was obliged to grant access to the Documents to the applicant, pursuant to Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’), Articles 15 and 298 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), the fundamental right of access to documents, Article 6(1) of the TEU juncto Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007 (the ‘Charter’) and Article 2(1) of 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 (‘Regulation No 1049/2001’). This is also confirmed by the application of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 a contrario. By failing to do so and by (incorrectly) relying on the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1), a), third indent and Article 4(2), second and third indents of Regulation No 1049/2001, the Commission misapplied the relevant provisions and misused its powers. The Commission also failed to apply in a correct fashion Article 4(6) and Article 4(7) and misused its powers under those provisions.
—

The applicant further submits that the EEG-surcharge revenues are not State resources or resources imputable to the State. The EEG-surcharge serves to fulfil the transmission system operators’ (hereinafter referred to as TSOs) entitlement under civil law against the electricity suppliers for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by them in the marketing of electricity. The amount of the surcharge is determined by the TSOs without any State involvement. The powers conferred upon the Bundesnetzagentur (federal network agency) served only to review the proper determination of the amount of the surcharge by the TSOs. They did not, however, obtain for the Bundesnetzagentur any permanent control or power of disposal over the revenue from the surcharge.
—

The applicant also claims that the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users does not constitute new aid for the purposes of Article 108 TFEU because the financing mechanism for the support of renewable energies in the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the past, been classified by the European Commission as compatible with the law on State aid and has not been substantially modified thus far.
—

The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicant observes in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicant.