ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Kibelisa Ngambasai v Council

(Case T-112/19)

(2019/C 139/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Roger Kibelisa Ngambasai (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

— rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Action brought on 14 March 2019 — LTTE v Council

(Case T-160/19)

(2019/C 155/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) (Herning, Denmark) (represented by: A. van Eik and T. Buruma, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 (1) insofar as it concerns the applicant.

In the alternative, the applicant submits that a lesser measure than continued placement on the EU List of Terrorist Organizations is warranted in this case.

The applicant additionally seeks an award of costs interest to be paid with interest by the Council and which will be specified at a later stage.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the latter cannot be qualified as a terrorist organization as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since no decision by a competent authority, as required by Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, has been taken.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the Council has not conducted any proper review as required by Article 1(6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the requirements of proportionality and subsidiarity.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant as it does not comply with the obligation to state reasons in conformity with Article 296 TFEU.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since it infringes upon the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective judicial protection.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/25 of 8 January 2019 amending and updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision (CFSP) 2018/1084 (OJ L 6, 9.1.2019, p. 6).

(2) Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93).
1.

First plea in law, in support of the applicant’s claim for annulment of the decision rejecting his request for assistance, alleging manifest error of assessment, violation of the duty of care, infringement of the principle of good administration, and misuse of power.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 March 2019 — Aurea Biolabs v EUIPO — Avizel (AUREA BIOLABS)

(Case T-184/19)

(2019/C 172/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurea Biolabs Pte Ltd (Cochin, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, QC and L. Oommen, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avizel SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for figurative mark AUREA BIOLABS — Application for registration No 15 836 737

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2019 in Case R 814/2018-2 (CORR)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the payment of the Applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law

— In support of its decision, the Board of Appeal relies on an invalid provision of law;

— Had there been an obvious error of law, the appropriate course was to revoke the previous decision;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 March 2019 — AQ v eu-LISA

(Case T-164/19)

(2019/C 164/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AQ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of eu-LISA of 8 May 2018 which terminates the applicant’s employment contract at eu-LISA without notice together with, in so far as necessary, the decision of eu-LISA of 4 December 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity and the violation of the rights of the defence and in particular the right to be heard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Articles 16 and 48 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 31 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 March 2019 — Cognac Ferrand v EUIPO (Shape of braiding on a bottle)

(Case T-172/19)

(2019/C 182/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Cognac Ferrand (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of braiding on a bottle) — Application for registration No 17 387 564

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in Case R 1640/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 March 2019 — Nosio v EUIPO — Passi (PASSIATA)

(Case T-142/19)

(2019/C 148/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Passi AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark PASSIATA — Application for registration No 14 593 123

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 in Case R 927/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant manifestly erred in its assessment of the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene and exceeded its competence as well as breached Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 (1) by: — relying on finding of the 2009 Member State committee support document on the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene as a constituent of coal tar pitch, high temperature without making its own assessment of the information at hand and thereby importing the vitiating errors in that support document; — reaching conclusions on the very persistent proprieties of phenanthrene which the evidence relied upon would have not been capable of supporting; — failing to consider available evidence that would have risen serious questions about the reliability and extreme conservatism of the water-sediment simulation OECD 308 study on phenanthrene; — failing to take into consideration information calling into question the use of a calculation to adjust the results of the OECD 308 study to account for temperature; — failing to assess the new evidence on the persistence of phenanthrene that would have been made available to it during the public consultation; and — by failing to consider all relevant information in the weight of evidence determination of the persistent proprieties of phenanthrene specifically with respect to the photodegradation, dissolution, and volatilisation of phenanthrene.
—

with regard to the rights derived from the private law contract, — reclassify their contractual relationship as a contract of employment of indefinite duration; — find that there has been an infringement by the defendants of their contractual obligations and, in particular, of their obligation to give notice of termination of a contract of indefinite duration; — consequently, order the defendants to pay the applicants compensation in lieu of notice calculated on the basis of their respective length of service, namely: — for BL: the sum of EUR 48 424.65; — for BM: the sum of EUR 31 552.75; — rule that the dismissal of the applicants is unfair and, consequently, order the defendants to pay them compensation assessed ex aequo et bono at: — EUR 75 000 in respect of the damage suffered by BM; — EUR 90 000 in respect of the damage suffered by BL; — find that the defendants did not have the legal end of employment documents prepared and — order them to pay the applicants the sum of EUR 100 per day of non-payment with effect from the bringing of the present action; — order them to send to the applicants the end of employment documents — order the defendants to pay interest on the abovementioned sums, calculated at the Belgian statutory rate;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 April 2019 — Aurora v CPVO — SESVanderhave (M 02205)

(Case T-278/19)

(2019/C 213/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aurora Srl (Padova, Italy) (represented by: L.-B. Buchman, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SESVanderhave NV (Tienen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No. EU 15118, sugar beet variety M 02205

Procedure before CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 27 February 2019 in Case R A010/2013-RENV

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision misapplied the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 November 2017 in case T-140/15;

— alter the contested decision, reverse CPVO Decision NN010 of 23 September 2013 and validate the challenge to the validity of CPVR No. EU 15118 raised by the applicant on 28 August 2012;

and as a consequence:

— declare that CPVR No. EU 15118 is ab initio null and void;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law

— Violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations;
1.

First plea in law, alleging, with reference to INVESTIGATION CEB/2017/067/IT, infringement of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103), in particular Article 2(2); of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), in particular Article 31(2); and of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549). — The applicant also claims in this regard infringement of Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty of 12 December 2007, and of the principles of proportionality and of legitimate expectations. — Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse of power and infringement of an essential procedural requirement in the form of failure to state adequate reasons.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging violation of Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations and in this connection infringement of the right to have one’s affairs handled impartially and fairly, violation of the duty to act diligently and manifest error of assessment.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

(Case T-281/19)

(2019/C 213/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC (Queen’s Counsel), S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

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 Halloumi χαλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 –European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2019 in Case R 2298/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— the Defendant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 April 2019 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)

(Case T-273/19)

(2019/C 220/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde, P. Homann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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: Application for European Union word mark TARGET VENTURES — Application for registration No 13 685 565

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 in Case R 1684/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 May 2019 — Cipriani v EUIPO — Hotel Cipriani (ARRIGO CIPRIANI)

(Case T-325/19)

(2019/C 246/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Arrigo Cipriani (Venice, Italy) (represented by: S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hotel Cipriani Srl (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ARRIGO CIPRIANI — Application for registration No 14 063 838

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 in Case R 406/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition filed by Hotel Cipriani s.r.l., or refer the case back to EUIPO in order that it may give a decision in accordance with the judgment;

— order full reimbursement of the costs of the present proceedings, including those of the previous procedural stages before EUIPO, in favour of Arrigo Cipriani.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 May 2019 — Wonder Line v EUIPO — De Longhi Benelux (KENWELL)

(Case T-284/19)

(2019/C 238/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wonder Line, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Longhi Benelux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark KENWELL — Application for registration No 13 532 296

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2019 in Case R 1351/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and possible co-defendants to pay all expenses of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Piejūra (Packing for foodstuffs)

(Case T-352/19)

(2019/C 255/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Piejūra SIA (Nīcas novads, Latvia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design No 2022 772-0001 (Packing for foodstuffs)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 in Case R 2516/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and declare the design valid;

— order EUIPO and the invalidity applicant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2) in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158 (3)

Within the context of the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant infringed Article 12(1)(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 in conjunction with Article 1(3) of Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/158, since in the context of the verification of CO2 savings it diverged from the authorised procedure in so far as it applied an inaccurate Willans’ factor.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 June 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

(Case T-376/19)

(2019/C 263/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Big Bang, trgovina in storitve, d.o.o. (Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY — Application for registration No 15 879 323

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1684/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present action for annulment and, accordingly, annul the contested decision, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division (opposition B 2 840 414) by which EU trade mark No 15 879 323 was refused only in respect of the goods and services in the Classes to which the opposition related (7, 9, 11, 16, 35 and 42) with the exception of the following goods in Class 7 which are also granted: ‘machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles); agricultural implements other than hand-operated; incubators for eggs; automatic vending machines’; and

— order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 June 2019 — Polisario Front v Council

(Case T-356/19)

(2019/C 270/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare its action for annulment admissible;

— annul the contested regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Council Regulation (EU) 2019/440 of 29 November 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Implementation Protocol thereto (OJ 2019 L 77, p.1), the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis of that regulation on account of the illegality of Decision 2019/441.

That plea is divided into eleven parts which are essentially identical to the eleven pleas in Case T-344/19, Polisario Front v Council.