ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/21)

(2021/C 88/57)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 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), (1) in so far as it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out.

— order the European Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

According to the applicant, the Commission misinterpreted the phrase ‘the competent authority shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year’ in Article 35 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 (2) and, on the basis of that misinterpretation, developed a wrongful practice. In the applicant’s view, the exclusion is based on the fact that, in its working documents, the Commission considers itself bound by an interpretation that is technically incorrect and not in accordance with that provision of the regulation.

By adopting the working documents, the Commission effectively deprived the Member States of their power to determine for themselves the percentage of additional beneficiaries that they consider should be subjected to on-the-spot checks. The contested exclusion is unlawful because, contrary to the provisions of the regulation, the Commission specifically determines, using a specific calculation method, the only figure for the increase in the percentage of checks considered acceptable. Furthermore, that determination lacks a technical basis, as the Commission does not take into account the differences between the Member States’ checks and their efficiency.

(1) OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. The applicants claim that before the adoption of the contested decision, the Commission gave them precise assurances that, first, a new concession contract covering all the lots, A, B and C, would be concluded from January 2021 onwards within the framework of the public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, secondly, the concession contract regarding the services relating to lots A and C, actually provided by the applicants, would, in the event of delay in public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, be extended until the selection by the Commission of a new service provider who would be responsible for carrying out the said services and, thirdly, the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would be transferred to the new service provider in application of collective labour agreement No 32 bis. Such precise assurances, given barely a few days before the contested decision was sent to Ciano, created well-founded expectations on the part of the applicants that the workers assigned to the services relating to lots A and C would, in any event, be transferred to the new service provider. However, by adopting the contested decision, which cancelled outright public procurement procedure No OIB/2019/CPN/0039, without extending the concession contract relating to lots A and C, the Commission has precluded the transfer of those workers, given that no new service provider will be selected in the near future, and has adopted a position radically opposed to the assurances it had given. The applicants therefore consider that by adopting the contested decision in such a context, the Commission infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached, one the one hand, the Articles 61, 160 (1) and 167 (1) of the Financial Regulation in conjunction with the general E.U. principles of transparency, equality and non-discrimination and, on the other hand, the article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, because the defendant and the successful tenderer (UVD Robots APS) are subject to a conflict of interest which entails a serious irregularity that renders the concluded Framework Contract null and void.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 February 2021 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Device of two crossed stripes placed on the side of a shoe)

(Case T-117/21)

(2021/C 128/64)

Language of the case: English

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: Munich, SL (La Torre de Claramunt, 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 (Representation of two crossed stripes placed on the side of a shoe — European Union trade mark No 2 923 852

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2020 in Case R 2882/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court with the actions concerning the same decision M.8870, which, on account of the substantive connection between them, are cumulative and form a single decision closing the proceedings;
—

order compensation of his material prejudice of EUR 30 000 and the compensation of his non-material prejudice which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 20 000;
1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 266 TFEU, including the failure to: (a) remedy the past effects of the annulled decisions; (b) compensate the applicant fairly for all the disadvantages/implications caused to her; (c) properly inform her with regard to the implementing decision of the Executive Board of 17 November 2020 or, at least, regarding the essential parts of that decision; and (d) allow her to share the ECB letter of 12 January 2021 inside and outside the ECB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl)

(Case T-155/21)

(2021/C 182/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark Völkl — EU trade mark No 4 467 569

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2021 in Case R 568/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 March 2021 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — Cuki Cofresco (grill dish)

(Case T-173/21)

(2021/C 217/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuki Cofresco Srl (Volpiano, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 516836-0007 (grill dish)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 in Case R 1856/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the application for a declaration that the contested Community design is invalid;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 3 March 2021 — Fursin and Others v ECB

(Case T-145/21)

(2021/C 206/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Ivan Fursin (Kiev, Ukraine) and 5 other applicants (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay financial compensation in respect of the harm which the applicants have suffered as a result of the defendant’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 529900WIPOINFDAWTJ81/1 WOANCA-2016-0005, of 3 March 2016, to revoke Trasta Komercbanka AS’ licence;

— determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 25 million (1) together with the compensatory interest starting at 3 March 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not deal appropriately with procedural irregularities. These include the fact that the Latvian FCMC (2) had concluded, immediately prior to the initiation of the licence withdrawal procedure, that a licence withdrawal was not warranted and that this fact was subsequently omitted from the request by the FCMC to revoke the licence. The applicants further complain that the English language version of the FCMC’s most recent decision was manipulated. Further alleged procedural irregularities concern a failure to deal effectively with potentially corrupt conduct by Latvian and European officials with respect to the present matter.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated substantive provisions by acting outside its area of competence when issuing the contested decision, in particular with regard to money laundering matters and that the defendant erroneously assumed grounds for a licence withdrawal.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicants suffered significant financial harm, especially because of Trasta Komercbanka AS’ liquidation as a result of the wrongful licence withdrawal.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a causal link between the licence withdrawal and the damage suffered by the applicants.

(1) The amounts are attributable to each of the applicants in the amounts of their shareholding of Trasta Komercbanka AS.

(2) Financial Capital Markets Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 April 2021 — Vita Zahnfabrik v EUIPO — VIPI Produtos Odontológicos (VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte)

(Case T-202/21)

(2021/C 217/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vita Zahnfabrik H. Rauter GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Säckingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis and F. Hauck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VIPI Indústria, Comércio, Exportação E Importação De Produtos Odontológicos LTDA (Pirassununga, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark VITABLOCS TriLuxe forte — International registration designating the European Union No 1 346 271

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 in Case R 818/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision in the way that the opposition against the European Union part of the international registration No 1 346 271 is dismissed in its entirety and that the costs of the proceedings before the EUIPO are imposed on the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— annul the contested decision as an auxiliary request;

— impose the costs of these proceedings before the General Court on EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 April 2021 — Thomas Henry v EUIPO (Spicy Ginger)

(Case T-220/21)

(2021/C 217/87)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Thomas Henry GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark Spicy Ginger — Application for registration No 18 093 014

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2021 in Case R 435/2020-1

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 (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 7(2) thereof;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 April 2021 — Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists v EUIPO — R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia (LOPEZ DE HARO)

(Case T-210/21)

(2021/C 228/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Vintae Luxury Wine Specialists SLU (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García and L. Polo Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: R. Lopez de Heredia Viña Tondonia SA (Haro, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark LOPEZ DE HARO — Application for registration No 17 909 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2021 in Case R 1741/2020-5

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant EU trade mark application No 17 909 326 LÓPEZ DE HARO (figurative mark) for goods in Class 33;

— order any party opposing the present action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 25 March 2021 — McCord v Commission

(Case T-161/21)

(2021/C 252/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raymond Irvine McCord (Belfast, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. O’Hare, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annul the decision and/or draft Regulation on 29 January 2021 of the European Commission to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (2019/C 384 I/01) (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’) and;

— pursuant to Article 263 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annul the decision of the European Commission not to have a published policy or an order that the European Commission develops and publishes a policy on the circumstances in which the Commission will trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

— pursuant to Article 265 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, declare that the European Commission has failed to act to have a published policy or an order that the European Commission develops and publishes a policy on the circumstances in which the Commission will trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol;

— order against the Commission for the Applicant’s costs of this application, to include all preparatory legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward that the decision and/or draft regulation to invoke Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1), by the European Commission was disproportionate and unlawful. He further states that the Commission needs to publish its policy in relation to the triggering of Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community in the future.

(1) Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2019 CI 384, p. 1).
Action brought on 3 May 2021 — Saure v Commission

(Case T-232/21)

(2021/C 242/73)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s request for access to documents of the Commission (file number Gestdem 2021/0550) by refusing to provide him with copies of all of the correspondence that it has exchanged, since 1 April 2020, with the company AstraZeneca plc or with its subsidiaries as well as with the Federal Chancellery of Germany or with the Federal Ministry of Health, relating to the company AstraZeneca plc or its subsidiaries, and in particular to the quantity of Covid-19 vaccines offered by AstraZeneca plc and its delivery deadlines;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: The applicant has a right to access the contested documents of the European Commission pursuant to Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The refusal by the Commission infringes that provision.

2. Second plea in law: No ground for exclusion laid down by Regulation No 1049/2001 precludes the applicant’s right of access. The Commission did not put forward any grounds for exclusion and no such grounds are apparent.

(1) 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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (TALIS)

(Case T-283/21)

(2021/C 278/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark TALIS — European Union trade mark No 15 632 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 888/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application;

— reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No 26 909 C of 17 March 2020 in such manner, to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark TALIS and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision;

— remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

— order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;