ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 243/35

Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera v Commission

(Case T-170/16)

(2016/C 243/38)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Guardian Glass España, Central Vidriera, S.L. (Llodio, Spain) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, D. Armesto Macías and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— admit the application and the grounds for annulment set out therein;

— uphold the grounds for annulment set out in the application and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;

— order the initiation of a formal procedure as set out in Article 108(2) TFEU so that the applicant may exercise its procedural rights and the Commission may formally resolve, in accordance with the law, its doubts regarding the compatibility of the aid in question;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the decision of the European Commission refusing to declare compatible certain aids received by Guardian which was notifed to the Spanish authorities by a letter from the Commission dated 15 July 2015, entitled ‘Tax matters in the Basque Country (Álava) — Informal communication regarding additional submissions in connection to compatibility with the 1998 guidelines on national regional aid’, and notified to the applicant by the Spanish authorities on 19 February 2016.

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

1. First plea in law. By its main plea the applicant submits that in adopting a decision declaring an individual aid award to be incompatible with the internal market, the Commission infringed Article 250 TFEU and the principle of collegiality in so far as that decision was not adopted by the College of Commissioners, as well as infringing Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4 and 13 of Regulation No 659/1999, (1) in so far as it failed to initiate the formal procedure prior to the adoption of that decision.

2. Second plea in law. By its second plea, relied on in the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU in so far as the Commission decision erred in assessing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
3.

Third ground of appeal, alleging inconsistency in the grounds of the judgment, breach of the obligation to state reasons, distortion of the facts and evidence, infringement of Article 4(4) of the 2004 GIPs and Article 91 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the principle of the separation of powers between the judicial and administrative authorities, breach of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, of the adversarial principle and of the principle of non-discrimination, as well as errors of law in relation to the examination by the Civil Service Tribunal of the consequences of the irregularities committed by the Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/50

Action brought on 2 June 2016 — Kneidinger v EUIPO — Topseat International (Toilet Lid)

(Case T-286/16)

(2016/C 260/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ernst Kneidinger (Wilhering, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topseat International (Plano, Texas, USA)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2274035-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2016 in Case R 1030/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs — in particular the cost of the pleadings and the further costs of any possible oral proceedings and travel costs — and the costs incurred during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
—

Annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16) excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes from the financing an amount of EUR 385 762,22 for expenditure declared by Portugal in the context of the Specific Aid Measure established pursuant to Article 68 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January, in the accounting years 2011, 2012 and 2013;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed sufficiently serious breaches of rules of law by activating, on the basis of Commission Decision 2008/969/EC, Euratom, of 16 December 2008 on the Early Warning System for the use of authorising officers of the Commission and the executive agencies (OJ 2008 L 344, p. 125), Early Warning System (‘EWS’) Warning ‘W3b’ against the applicant, following an investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), identifying the level of risk associated with the applicant in its capacity as the person awarded the public service contract concerning a project designed to strengthen the fight against undeclared work in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. That plea is divided into five parts: — First part, alleging that the decision to issue an EWS warning against the applicant (‘the EWS decision’) is unlawful in that it has no basis in law, and that it infringes both Article 5 TEU and the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence; — Second part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it infringes the principle of legal certainty as regards the conditions relating to Warning ‘W3b’; — Third part, alleging that the EWS decision is unlawful in that it stems from infringements of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of the principle of sound administration, of the rights of the defence and of the fundamental right to be heard, and from a failure to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons; — Fourth part, relied on in the alternative, alleging that the Commission infringed the EWS decision, failed to comply with the duty to provide a statement of reasons enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter and with the duty of diligence, and infringed the principle of proportionality; — Fifth part, alleging that the Commission’s reason for refusing to give its agreement is irregular, in so far as it disregards the tender specifications.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/32

Action brought on 20 June 2016 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)

(Case T-326/16)

(2016/C 287/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiertafel Deutschland e.V. (Rathenow, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Tafel’ — EU trade mark No 8 985 541

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2016 in Case R 248/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/38

Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission

(Case T-347/16)

(2016/C 296/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14) and order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the follow-up to the decision contested in Case T-289/16, Inox Mare v Commission.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful as a result of the serious irregularities in the related investigation procedure conducted by OLAF and concluded by the Final Report contested in Case T-289/16, as cited above.

In concrete terms, the contested measure is vitiated by:

— Infringement and incorrect application of the Community legislation on the anti-dumping duty.

— Infringement and incorrect application of the Philippine and Community legislation on the duty, conferred on the Philippine customs authorities, to verify the origins of goods certified by those authorities.

— Infringement and incorrect application of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

Therefore, in its heads of claim the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision for infringement of the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application and for infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/26

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

(Case T-306/16)

(2016/C 296/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Door handle’ — Community design No 2 208 066-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17/03/2016 in Case R 2040/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 17 march 2016 given in case R 2040/2014-3, concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD 002208066-0001;

— order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 by accepting belated evidence — a declaration of the representative of the undertaking Klamex, regardless of the fact that the subject evidence contained information strictly new for the proceedings, not confirmed by evidence presented before the Invalidity Division;

— Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect and arbitrary finding that evidence presented by the other party confirmed that there were no material differences between the RCD and the design of the ‘DORA’ handle in: — the shape and the proportions of the shaft, — the proportions of the shaft and grip part, — the depth of the grip handle, — the degree of beveling of the grip handle, — rounding of the edges of handle.

— Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 through incorrect assessment of freedom in designing door handles by stating that the designer’s degree of freedom in designing door handles was almost unlimited and resulted from the fact that the Board had not taken into consideration features which a designer should have taken into consideration by designing the door handle;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that applicant’s re-designation in April 2016 is (i) an abuse of process and as such a misuse of powers, (ii) contrary to the Applicant’s rights to good administration and (iii) contrary to the principles of res judicata, legal certainty and finality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 296/24

Action brought on 14 June 2016 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

(Case T-303/16)

(2016/C 296/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision by the European Commission of 4 April 2016 (C(2016) 2083(final)); and

— order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of Novartis.

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 that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the orphan market exclusivity rights of Novartis for its product TOBI Podhaler pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1) on orphan medicinal products and because the conditions in Article 8(3) of that regulation for granting a derogation from these orphan market exclusivity rights have not been fulfilled.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s Decision of 4 April 2016 has been prepared and adopted in violation of the ‘Duty of Care’ also known as the ‘Principle of Diligence’, specifically because of a failure to take into account all relevant scientific data about the medicinal products concerned, and because of a failure to consult Novartis as an interested party in the scientific assessment.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ L 18, 22.1.2000, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of Annex I to that regulation, and alleging misuse and abuse of powers by the European Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 314/28

Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

(Case T-344/16)

(2016/C 314/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

— The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

— The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill;

— The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment;

— The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/46

Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL WIFE)

(Case T-427/16)

(2016/C 343/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL WIFE’ — EU trade mark No 5 276 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1528/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 335/51

Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

(Case T-402/16)

(2016/C 335/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘berlinGas’ — application No 14 067 714

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 291/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Arrigoni v EUIPO — Arrigoni Formaggi (Arrigoni Valtaleggio)

(Case T-454/16)

(2016/C 364/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Arrigoni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: P. Di Gravio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arrigoni Formaggi SpA (Bergamo, 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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Arrigoni Valtaleggio’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 028 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 2922/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action and, accordingly, declare the contested decision invalid and/or inexistent on the following grounds, remitting, if appropriate, the case to the decision-making bodies of EUIPO or declaring the first decision No C 406 A of 17 April 2013 valid and final;

— in any event, declare Arrigoni Battista SpA’s application No 1 028 737 to be invalid in its entirety, on the basis of the following infringements of law.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(2)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

— Infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

— Infringement of the European Constitutional Charter;

— Infringement of Article II-77 Right to property;

— Infringement of Articles 76 and 87 of the Constitution;

— Infringement of Law No 273 of 12 December 2002;

— Infringement of the Italian Industrial Property Code, Legislative Decree No 30 of 10 February 2005 and subsequent amendments: Article7, Article 12.B, C and G, Article 13(1), Article 16.1, Article 20, Article 22(1) and (2);
—

annul the decision of the Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium in as much as the decision incorrectly classifies the excess profit ruling system as a scheme, does not properly identify the alleged state aid measure, incorrectly considers the excess profit ruling as incompatible state aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFUE and incorrectly requires Belgium to recover undefinable sums from recipients of rulings under the excess profit ruling system; and
3.

Third plea in law, alleging errors of fact, errors of law, manifest errors of assessment and infringement of essential procedural requirements with respect to horizontal non-coordinated effects arising from network sharing. In particular: the Commission has erred in relation to its novel propositions concerning the necessity and extent of ‘alignment’ between competitors in network sharing agreements; and the Commission has committed an error of law and manifest errors of assessment by basing its conclusions on potential harm to competitors of the merged entity rather than competition. The Commission committed further errors in rejecting Commitments offered by Hutchison that would have fully resolved all of its concerns relating to network sharing.
—

The applicant claims that the decision disregards the applicant’s unmistakeable intention in the application for access to documents to gain a comprehensive insight in the process which led to the decision on the redesigning of the press room in the Commission’s Berlaymont building with a reduction of languages to English and French. Only a few documents were produced that mainly included formalities but did not give information about the author and reasons of the decision. The Commission does not, in the contested decision, go into details on the document sources referred to by the applicant, keeps the reasons for the refusal of access private and thereby infringes the duty arising from Article 10(3) TEU and further EU legislation to take decisions as openly and as closely to the citizen as possible and to explain the reasons.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed an error in law in examining the fees paid by Brussels South Charleroi Airport (BSCA) to the applicant in the light of Article 107 TFEU, when the decisions to invest, to build airport infrastructure and to make it available to BSCA were taken before delivery of the judgment of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (T-128/98, EU:T:2000:290), confirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission (C-82/01 P, EU:C:2002:617).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 392/48

Action brought on 7 September 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Vans (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-638/16)

(2016/C 392/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU position mark (Representation of a bar on the side of a shoe) — Application No 10 263 895

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision so that the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 December 2014 is annulled, opposition B 001919210 accepted and EU trade mark application No 10 263 895 rejected;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 6 July 2016 in Case R 408/2015-4;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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