ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 13 September 2018 — ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

(Case T-544/18)

(2018/C 399/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Deutschland) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt und D. Jacob, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 389/2013 (1) by failing to instruct the central administrator to take into consideration the change to the national allocation table in the EUTL in respect of the applicant’s installation with EU-ID DE000000000000060;

— alternatively, annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 31 August 2018 on the applicant’s request of 14 May 2018;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

Infringement of EU law

The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt the decision, pursuant to Article 52(2) of Regulation No 389/2013, since the change to the national allocation table is consistent with the requirements of EU law.

Further, the applicant submits that, in accordance with the rules laid down in Commission Decision 2011/278/EU, (2) the product-related historical activity level for sintered ore is to be determined on the basis of the quantities of sintered ore which are weighed when leaving the sinter installation.

Finally, the applicant takes the view that sintered ore which, after its production in the context of burden preparation in a blast furnace, is rescreened and again placed in a sinter installation as recycling material, should not be deducted when determining the activity level of the sinter installation.

(1) Commission Regulation (EU) No 359/2013 of 2 May 2013 establishing a Union Registry pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Decisions No 280/2004/EC and No 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Regulations (EU) No 920/2010 and No 1193/2011 (OJ 2013, L 122, p. 1).

(2) Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011, L 130, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)

(Case T-559/18)

(2018/C 399/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, 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 1339246-0009

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2215/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs,

Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:

— order the other party to bear its own costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
—

As regards the content of the contested decision, the applicants claim, in particular, that: (i) the universal service obligation compensation is not compatible with the internal market; (ii) the State guarantees do not constitute existing aid; (iii) the VAT exemption is imputable to the State; (iv) the misallocation of costs involves the transfer of State resources and is imputable to the State; and (v) the capital injection of 23 February 2017 is imputable to the State and confers an economic advantage on Post Danmark.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the presumption of innocence.
1.

First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, together with an insufficient statement of reasons for the contested decision, resulting in a finding that there is no EU interest in pursuing the case. The applicant argues that the Commission did not take a definitive position either in relation to the prerequisites for a possibility of finding abuse of a dominant position or in relation to any of the seven categories of acts allegedly committed. In assessing the complaint that the dominant undertaking had applied predatory pricing, the Commission uncritically based its decision on the arguments put forward by that undertaking, disregarding the applicant’s arguments and failing to carry out even a cursory analysis of the issue. The applicant considers that the sole purpose of the launching of the fighting brand by the dominant undertaking was to make it impossible for its competitors to enter the market or to make development on that market impossible, and that the investment discounts applied by that undertaking are selective, exclusive and discriminatory, with the result that there is an infringement of Article 102 TFEU. The applicant argues that the evidence points clearly to the conclusion by the dominant undertaking of exclusivity agreements contrary to Article 102 TFEU, and that the conducting of investigative proceedings would not require substantial resources to be set aside for that purpose, but would require only verification of the information and evidence submitted by the applicant.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, in so far as the administration did not weigh up the applicant’s interests and those of the service, in particular the fact that the applicant has been working for the Parliament for 15 years, has an excellent relationship with her hierarchical superiors and has very good staff reports, and, moreover, the decision — which was publicised within a short time — adversely affects her person and her reputation.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as: — The right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken, has been disregarded. In the present case, neither were the applicant’s written submissions taken into account in any way, nor was it invited to submit arguments prior to the adoption of the final decision; — The applicant’s requests to access the file in its entirety have been ignored; — Although the applicant has at all times corresponded with the defendant in Spanish, the Commission has issued all of its communications and decisions in English.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2018 — Del Valle Ruiz and Others V SRB

(Case T-514/18)

(2018/C 427/106)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Antonio Del Valle Ruiz (Mexico City, Mexico) and 36 others (represented by: P. Saini, QC, J. Pobjoy, Barrister and R. Boynton, Solicitor)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

— annul the final decision of the SRB Appeal Panel in Case 48/2017, dated 19 June 2018, insofar as the latter held that the Single Resolution Board (SRB) was entitled to rely upon (i) Article 4(1)(a), fourth indent; (ii) Article 4(2), first indent; (iii) Article 4(2), third indent; and/or (iv) Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1) (and/or the equivalent provisions under SRB Decision SRB/ES/2017/01 of 9 February 2017 on public access to SRB documents), in order to justify non-disclosure of the documents requested by the applicants in their confirmatory application dated 23 August 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB Appeal Panel has infringed the fourth indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 4(6) of Regulation No. 1049/2001

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Appeal Panel has infringed Article 11 of Regulation No. 1049/2001.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).
—

annul the decisions adversely affecting the applicants individually, consisting of the decisions of the appointing authority not to reimburse them for their school fees for the year 2017/2018 which came about in a number of ways depending on the individual circumstances of each of the applicants; — either through an individual decision (more specifically an e-mail) specifying in detail the refusal of the reimbursement; — or by the use of the word ‘processed’ in their Sysper and considered by the applicant to be a rejection decision, given that the subsequent wage slip for the following month (at the earliest on the 10th, since that is the date when the pay slips are issued) contains no reimbursement or only a reimbursement for transport costs;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 October 2018 — Fujifilm Recording Media v EUIPO — iTernity GmbH (d:ternity)

(Case T-609/18)

(2018/C 445/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Fujifilm Recording Media GmbH (Kleve, Germany) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schulze, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger und C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iTernity GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘d:ternity’ — EU trade mark No 11 152 154

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 July 2018 in Case R 2324/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, declare that there is no need to adjudicate on the dispute in the main proceedings;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred before the Court and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Soundio v EUIPO — E-Plus Mobilfunk (Vibble)

(Case T-665/18)

(2019/C 16/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Soundio A/S (Drammen, Norway) (represented by: N. Köster and J. Albers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant 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 mark Vibble — International registration designating the European Union No 1 290 194

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2018 in Case R 721/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis)

(Case T-652/18)

(2019/C 4/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Porus GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘oral Dialysis’ — Application for registration No 16 774 259

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 in Case R 1375/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— uphold the application;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 November 2018 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper)

(Case T-666/18)

(2019/C 25/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, 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: European Union figurative mark ad pepper — European Union trade mark No 1 307 966

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 in Case R 839/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and — in the event of a formal intervention — also the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

According to the second plea in law, the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the law and of the facts, with respect to the judgment that the new Transitory Flexibility Remuneration Mechanism satisfies the criteria of the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy (2014-2020) for the assessment of the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and in particular the criteria of necessity, proportionality, appropriateness, incentive effect and avoidance of undue negative effects on competition.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2018 — Showroom v EUIPO — E-Gab (SHOWROOM)

(Case T-679/18)

(2019/C 25/69)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Showroom sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by M. Janicka — Kapłon, legal adviser)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E-Gab NV (Ternat, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court/Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SHOWROOM — Application for registration No 11 110 376

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1834/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and E-GAB (if the latter decides to intervene in the proceedings) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant in the procedure before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of EUIPO.

Pleas in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good faith, in so far as, by introducing into the framework agreement in question a general revocation clause according to which it may terminate that agreement arbitrarily, without any basis or justification, the Commission misused its powers and ignored the balance of interests underlying any contract, whether public or private.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 December 2018 — Telemark plus v EUIPO (Telemarkfest)

(Case T-719/18)

(2019/C 44/106)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Telemark plus eV (Altusried, Germany) (represented by: S. Schenk, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Telemarkfest — Application No 16 615 114

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2018 in Case R 346/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— reformulate the contested decision as follows by deleting point No 3 of the operative part: ‘[The Board of Appeal hereby:] 1. Annuls the contested decision in part, namely in so far as the application in respect of the services “Entertainment services; Arranging of transportation for travel tours; Cultural activities; Sporting activities; Services for providing food and drink and temporary accommodation” has been rejected; 2. Allows the EU trade mark application also to proceed in respect of those services’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 13 December 2018 — Sumitomo Chemical and Tenka Best v Commission

(Case T-734/18)

(2019/C 72/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom) and Tenka Best, SL (Aiguafreda, Spain) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer and V. McElwee, solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1251 of 18 September 2018 not approving empenthrin as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products of product-type 18; (1)

— 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 failed to follow procedural steps that were required of it prior to adopting the contested act. Had such steps been followed, the act adopted might have been different.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in the following areas: in not taking into account the procedural irregularities in the review of empenthrin; in permitting a hypothetical risk to give rise to the non-approval of empenthrin; in failing to take into account animal welfare requirements stemming from the Biocidal Products Regulation. (2)

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to ensure the first applicant’s rights of defence — It is argued that the first applicant’s comments and data have not been reviewed and its rights of defence necessarily infringed.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has infringed the principle of sound administration. — It is argued that the first applicant was not given the time to develop future data and that its data waivers were unfairly rejected.

(1) OJ 2018 L 235, p. 24.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).
Action brought on 11 December 2018 — Dragnea v Commission

(Case T-738/18)

(2019/C 65/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Liviu Dragnea (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and S. Gubel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision (OCM(2018)20575) sent to the legal representative of the applicant by letter dated 1 October 2018;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of articles 9(1), 9(2) and 9(4) of the OLAF Regulation (1) and a violation of the rights of defence of the applicant in the investigations, including the right to be heard and the respect of the presumption of innocence.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of sound administration in relation to the investigations as well as the refusal to open an investigation on the conduct of the OLAF investigation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right of access to documents concerning the OLAF investigation.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that an error in the interpretation of the relationship between Article 17(1) of Regulation No 714/2009 and Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and consequential reliance on the possibility of the applicant’s interconnector being eligible for a cross-border cost allocation procedure and failure to take account of issues associated with such procedure was committed. — It may not be correct that an exemption can only be granted after it has been demonstrated that a regulatory regime pursuant to Article 12 of Regulation No 347/2013 is not available. That regime should be voluntary and not applicable where an exemption is granted. — The approach adopted by the defendant could have failed to take into account risks associated with pursuing a regulated regime.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 December 2018 — Bronckers v Commission

(Case T-746/18)

(2019/C 72/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the (implied) decision of the Commission of 17 October 2018 rejecting, under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001, (1) the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents relating to the Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks; (2)

— order the 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, alleging that the Commission violated Article 8 (3) of Regulation 1049/2001 by failing to decide within the prescribed time limit.

(1) Regulation (EC) 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).

(2) OJ 1997 L 152, p. 15.