ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Case T-639/17: Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Madrid Diario de la Noche and Others v Commission and SRB

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Madrid Diario de la Noche and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-639/17)

Parties

Applicants: Madrid Diario de la Noche (Madrid, Spain) and 24 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Roman, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Acknowledge the lodging of the present application and its supporting documents, as well as the claims it contains;

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of SRB and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017 and, consequently, order SRB and the European Commission to refund to the applicants their investments in Banco Popular or, in the alternative, order SRB and the Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability;

— Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

— Declare the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert invalid and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants in the terms set out in the present application.

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 402/54

Action brought on 28 September 2017 — hoechstmass Balzer v EUIPO (Shape of a tape measure)

(Case T-691/17)

(2017/C 402/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: hoechstmass Balzer GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany) (represented by: K. Zapfer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional EU mark (Shape of a tape measure) — Application for registration No 15 004 997

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in Case R 2331/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 (Case R 2331/2016-4) — the contested decision — as regards the tridimensional mark 015004997;

— order the defendant/EUIPO to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; in the alternative

— limit the list of goods in class 09 by adding the words ‘tailors’ to ‘tailors’ tape measure’ and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2017 in that it covers ‘tailors’ tape measures’.

Plea in law
—

Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicants as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived them of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities they owned;
—

In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicants for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicants’ representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 437/33

Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Anabi Blanga v EUIPO — Polo/Lauren (HPC POLO)

(Case T-657/17)

(2017/C 437/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gidon Anabi Blanga (Mexico, Mexico) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company LP (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘HPC POLO’ — Application for registration No 13 531 462

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2017 in Case R 2368/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

Plea in law
—

In accordance with Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, order the Single Resolution Board to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered, in a precise amount which will be determined once the information required by the applicant’s representatives is provided in full and, in particular Deloitte’s provisional report and those prepared by independent experts in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, access to which is hereby requested;
1.

First plea in law, alleging the lack of jurisdiction of the author of the contested decision, in that, in the view of the applicant, the authority with the power to decide upon his new post was the current President of the European Parliament and not the Secretary General of the Parliament.
—

Alternatively, declare that SRB’s contested decision has caused harm to Banco Popular Español, S.A. shareholders and bond holders — harm in respect of which SRB is under an obligation to pay compensation, in accordance with Article 87 of Regulation No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014 — and order SRB and, consequently, the European Union to pay compensation to the applicants in an amount equivalent to the financial value of the shares and capital instruments which were held by the applicants the day before the adoption of the contested decision or, where appropriate, in the alternative, in an amount equivalent to the financial value those shares and instruments would have maintained had the financial institution been subject to an ordinary insolvency procedure at the time of the adoption of the contested decision.
—

Declare and rule, — the applicants’ calculation sheets of 3 February, 6 February and 20 March 2017 which were sent to them by email by EEAS Human Resources and, insofar as necessary, the salary slips by which payment of the education allowance for their children was granted; — and, finally, insofar as necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority in the form of an email of 15 December 2016 informing them: — that the application for reimbursement of the education expenses above the ceiling for type B education allowance in respect of the 2016/2017 academic year was accepted, and — that each amount above the ceiling could not in any event exceed EUR 9 704,16;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/58

Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Briloner Leuchten (Wall lighting)

(Case T-767/17)

(2018/C 022/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Briloner Leuchten GmbH (Brilon, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 2 435 768-0036

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 746/2016-3

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, alleging, in the alternative, that the competition notice is unlawful, based on the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials [of the European Union]. In particular, the applicant argues that the condition for admission at issue is not connected with the requirements of the posts to be filled as described in the competition notice and is, therefore, contrary to the interests of the service.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/59

Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case T-772/17)

(2018/C 022/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, 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: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ — European Union trade mark No 2 090 520

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1540/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare European Union figurative mark No 2 090 520 containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ invalid;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and order the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/36

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — TecAlliance v EUIPO — Siemens (TecDocPower)

(Case T-789/17)

(2018/C 042/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TecAlliance GmbH (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: P. Engemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Siemens AG (Munich, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘TecDocPower’ — EU trade mark No 13 402 326

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2017 in Case R 2433/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/34

Action brought on 29 November 2017 — US v ECB

(Case T-780/17)

(2018/C 052/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: US (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

— Declare this action admissible and well-founded;

In consequence:

— Annul the 2016 staff report (covering the period from 1 September 2015 to 1 September 2016) and the decision dated 15 December 2016 on the Annual salary and bonus review (‘ASBR’) for 2016, served on the applicant on 30 November 2016 and 9 January 2017 respectively;

— Annul the decision of the ECB of 3 May 2017 rejecting the applicant’s requests of 15 February 2017 and 9 March 2017 for administrative review;

— Annul the decision of the EBC of 12 September 2017, served on the applicant on 19 September 2017, rejecting his claim brought on 7 July 2017;

— Award damages for the losses suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law as regards the application for annulment of the 2016 staff report.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in that the applicant’s staff report merely sets out general, repetitive and circular criticisms.

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment vitiating the contested report.

3. Third plea in law, alleging misuse of power, harassment suffered by the applicant and infringement of the duty of care and the principle of sound administration.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity committed by the defendant when drawing up the contested report.

The applicant also raises a plea in law alleging the unlawfulness of the guidelines for the ASBR and infringement of the principle of legal certainty as regards the decision concerning the 2016 ASBR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/37

Action brought on 5 December 2017 — St. Andrews Links v EUIPO (ST ANDREWS)

(Case T-791/17)

(2018/C 042/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: St. Andrews Links Ltd (St. Andrews, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Hattier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ST ANDREWS’ — Application for registration No 11 176 773

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2017 in Case R 93/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— consider the present appeal admissible;

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the appeal for the following services in class 41: ‘Arranging and conducting entertainment conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Club services (entertainment or education); Providing a website featuring information regarding conferences, congresses, events, competitions and seminars; Special event planning; Organization of cultural events and of exhibitions for cultural or educational purposes, Publication of books, electronic books and journals on-line; Vocational guidance and instructions services (education or training advice)’;

— allow the European Union trademark application No. 11 176 773 for registration for the above-mentioned services; and

— order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the Applicant in the course of the present proceeding.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/39

Action brought on 18 December 2017 — Sierra v EUIPO

(Case T-819/17)

(2018/C 072/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Mercedes Sierra (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant to delete from the applicant’s ‘Appraisal Report’ for the year 2016 any criticism of her communication style, on the ground that it constitutes a misrepresentation and is contrary to the fundamental right of the individual to freely express ideas and opinions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against EUIPO’s decision adopted in the applicant’s annual performance appraisal for the year 2016.

Specifically, the applicant requests that certain assessments be removed from the ‘Appraisal Report’.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on her right to freedom of expression whilst at work without fear of reprisal.

The applicant considers her right to freedom of expression to have been infringed and considers that the reason given for the decision not to promote the official, as merited on the basis of the appraisal of her commitment, the quality and performance of her work, denies her the opportunity to defend herself.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/17

Action brought on 20 December 2017 — Weber-Stephen Products v EUIPO (iGrill)

(Case T-822/17)

(2018/C 063/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Weber-Stephen Products LLC (Palatine, Illinois, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and A. Jauch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘iGrill’ — Application for registration No 15 456 726

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 September 2017 in Case R 579/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Corrigendum to the communication to the Official Journal in relation to Case T-603/18

( Official Journal of the European Union C 436 of 3 December 2018 )

(2019/C 35/41)

The communication published concerning Case T-603/18, ZE v Parliament is replaced with the following text:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/49

Action brought on 23 January 2018 — Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński v EUIPO — Heinrich Bauer Verlag (Brave Paper)

(Case T-37/18)

(2018/C 104/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Stirlinx Arkadiusz Kamusiński (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Pruszczyk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heinrich Bauer Verlag KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Brave Paper’ — Application for registration No 13 774 211

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2017 in Case R 391/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the trademark to be registered for all applied goods and services;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Pleas in law
1.

In its decision of 8 November 2017, the SRB clearly confuses the general right of access to documents, on which any EU citizen can rely, with the more specific right of access to the file, which can be exercised only by parties which have an interest in the proceedings to which the file relates. The SRB, however, concludes that the list of documents to which the applicant can be granted access is the same under both rights, a statement which is at variance with the law. The right of access to the file is clearly a separate right to that of access to documents. Whereas the former is one of the rights coming within the scope of the ‘right to good administration’ enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the latter is an independent right of a much more general nature and connected with the principle of public transparency.
II.

By imposing a correction of EUR 546 351,91 for a deficiency in key and ancillary controls, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as, in deciding on the gravity of the non-conformity, on the nature of the infringements and on the financial damage caused to the European Union: 1. it failed to take account of the calculations carried out by the competent authorities of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the financial damage caused to the European Union that is connected with divergences of the penalty system which relate to infringements as to animal identification and registration and are not provided for in the relevant measures of EU law, in respect of the 2014 claim year; 2. it failed to take account of the calculations carried out by the competent authorities of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the financial damage caused to the European Union that is connected with an overly lenient assessment of failure to observe the requirements for the identification and registration of animals, in respect of the 2014 claim year; 3. also relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it wrongly found that in Lithuania risk analysis did not comply with that regulation because risk factors connected with the animals were not included in it; 4. also relying on an incorrect interpretation of Article 84 of Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009, it wrongly found that the monitoring carried out in Lithuania of the results of controls did not comply with that regulation, because statistics were supplied without full observance of the Commission’s templates.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/44

Action brought on 19 January 2018 — Delfant Hoylaerts v Commission

(Case T-17/18)

(2018/C 104/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isabelle Delfant Hoylaerts (Montredon-des-Corbières, France) (represented by: E. Conquet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s Rejection Decision of 21 March 2017;

— annul the Commission’s implicit Rejection Decision of 20 October 2017;

— order the Commission to bear the costs relating to the medico-educational institution from 20 October 2017;

— order the Commission to pay to Ms Delfant Hoylaerts EUR 3 000 in damages as compensation for the financial and non-material losses suffered;

— order the Commission to pay the costs and to pay to Ms Delfant Hoylaerts EUR 3 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, the provisions of which have been adopted by the joint rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Union, in particular Article 20, and by the Guide to Commission assistance for disabled children of staff entitled under the Staff Regulations.

According to the applicant, the Commission infringed the above provisions by adopting the decision to refuse to bear costs relating to a medico-educational institution (‘MEI’) for her disabled child. In that respect, she submits that that decision is based on a purely administrative misunderstanding and that the legal basis relied on by the Commission is lacking.

Finally, the applicant claims that the unfair conduct on the part of the Commission has serious consequences in that the Commission is incapable of taking sole responsibility for the costs of the MEI where the MEI is essential for her child. Thus, her psychological and financial circumstances have been exacerbated by the fault on the Commission’s part.
2.

Breach of Article 43(1) of the Staff Regulations and Appraisal Manual in that the defendant made several manifest errors of assessment: — manifest errors of assessment in relation to the main activities of the applicant as regard the criteria ‘Efficiency’, ‘Abilities’ and ‘Conduct’; and — as regard the errors of assessment committed by the defendant in relation to the other activities of the applicant.
—

award the applicant the amount of EUR 1 475 by way of compensation for material damage plus statutory interest at the rate of 2,25 %, to be calculated as from the payment of that amount, or, in the alternative, as from the date on which the complaint was lodged, or, in the further alternative, as from the date on which the application was lodged, and the amount of EUR 1 by way of compensation for non-material damage;