ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/24

Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Belgium v Commission

(Case T-664/14)

2014/C 380/31

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by J. Meyers, avocat)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Article 2(4) of European Commission Decision C(2014) 1021 of 3 July 2014 concerning the guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives in Case SA.33927;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law, alleging an infringement by the Commission of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU and of the principle of proportionality, in that the contested decision would impose on Belgium, in addition to the obligation to recover the aid from the recipient cooperative undertakings, a prohibition on making any payment to natural persons protected by the guarantee.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 372/18

Action brought on 1 August 2014 — Group OOD v OHIM — Kosta Iliev (GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL)

(Case T-567/14)

2014/C 372/23

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Group OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Dragia Dragiev and Andrey Andreev, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kosta Iliev (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: Zlatarevi Patent and Trade Mark Bureau)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision R 1587/2013-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 on the basis of Article 65(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;

— order OHIM and, in the case of its intervention in the proceedings before the Court, the party concerned to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kosta Iliev.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark with the word elements ‘GROUP Company TOURISM & TRAVEL’ for goods and services in classes 35, 39 and 43.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Group OOD.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: unregistered trade mark comprising substantive rights over a sign with the word elements ‘Group company’.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as unfounded.

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (the content of the Bulgarian law was incorrectly examined of the Board’s own motion);

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (there was no comprehensive and correct evaluation of the evidence submitted);
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 388/22

Action brought on 11 September 2014 — Peri v OHIM (Shape of a formwork coupler)

(Case T-656/14)

2014/C 388/27

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Peri GmbH (Weißenhorn, Germany) (represented by A. Bognár and M. Eck, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2014 in Case R 1178/2013-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional mark in the shape of a formwork coupler for goods in Classes 6 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 8 26 766

Decision of the Examiner: The application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 380/23

Action brought on 12 September 2014 — Jurašinović v Council

(Case T-658/14)

2014/C 380/30

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: O. Pfligersdorffer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 8 July 2014 insofar as it limited the applicant’s access to the documents referred to in Annex 3 to that decision by invoking the protection of international relations and the protection of court proceedings and by redacting the requested documents on that ground;

— order the Council to pay the applicant EUR 5 000 exclusive of tax, that is to say EUR 6 000 in total including all taxes, to cover procedural costs, with interest at the European Central Bank rate as at the date of registration of the application;

— order the Council 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 manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of court proceedings laid down in the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), in so far as the Court had already held, in Jurašinović v Council (T-63/10, EU:T:2012:516) — in implementation of which the contested decision was adopted — that although that exception was applicable, it could not operate in the present case.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the protection of the public interest as regards international relations laid down in the third indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in that the measure or the documents at issue concerned information issued by the European Union and not from the United Nations system, with the result that the flow of information from that organisation would not be affected.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in relation to the exception concerning the overriding public interest, which allows, under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, derogation from the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, in that, first, the proceedings to which the documents relate are now definitively completed and, secondly, the Republic of Croatia is now a Member State of the European Union.

(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).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/48

Action brought on 14 August 2014 — Bionorica v Commission

(Case T-619/14)

2014/C 409/69

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bionorica SE (Neumarkt, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, T. Guttau and N. Hußmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the defendant, in infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9), failed to entrust the European Food Safety Authority with the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials for the drafting of a Community list of permitted claims for plant materials in accordance with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006, and all the necessary conditions for the application of those claims,

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 (1)

According to the applicant, the Commission’s failure to act infringes Article 13(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006, which provides that 31 January 2010 is a binding deadline for transposition. The applicant claims that the Commission failed to comply with that deadline. In that regard, the applicant claims that the Commission is not entitled to construe the scientific assessment of health claims relating to plant materials as not being subject to a deadline. The defendant’s failure to act, in the opinion of the applicant, undermines a uniform application of law throughout the European Union and is not compatible with the basic principle of the regulation to create uniform European rules.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).
—

annul the Commission decisions which are contained in the defendant’s letter of 12 June 2014 to the applicant and relate respectively to the two complaints which the applicant submitted in turn to the defendant challenging the unlawful State aid which resulted, initially, from the application of decision No 346/2012 of the Greek regulatory authority for energy and, subsequently, from the award of the special arbitration tribunal in the context of the permanent arbitration of the abovementioned regulatory authority for energy — both of which obliged the applicant to supply electricity to the company Alouminion A.E. at below cost price — and, specifically, the Commission’s express decision not to investigate further the second of the abovementioned complaints from the applicant, on the ground that no infringement of the State aid rules was established, and its implicit decision not to investigate further the first of the abovementioned complaints;
—

annul the decision C(2014) 3192 final of 26 May 2014 issued in Case State aid SA.38517 (2014/NN) — Micula v Romania (ICSID arbitration award) ordering Romania to suspend any action which may lead to the execution or implementation of the award of 11 December 2013 rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal established under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes in the case Ioan Micula, Viorel Micula and others v. Romania (ICSID Case No. ARB/05/20), as the Commission considers that the execution of the award constitutes unlawful State aid, until the Commission has taken a final decision on the compatibility of that State aid with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 409/58

Appeal brought on 22 September 2014 by Bernat Montagut Viladot against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission

(Case T-696/14 P)

2014/C 409/79

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Bernat Montagut Viladot (Schaerbeek, Belgium) (represented by F. Rodríguez-Gigirey Pérez and J. Simón Sánchez, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the General Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut v Commission;

— uphold the action brought by Mr Montagut Viladot in Case F-160/12, holding it to be admissible and well founded;

— grant the form of order sought by that party at first instance in accordance with Article 139 of the Rules of Procedure, annulling the decision dated 8 February 2012 by which Mr Montagut was excluded from the reserve list of selected candidates; and

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 15 July 2014 in Case F-160/12 Montagut Viladot v Commission, rejecting the action brought by the then applicant against the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/206/11 (AD 5) not to include his name on the reserve list drawn up following that competition.

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

1. First ground of appeal, alleging an error of law resulting from the interpretation of the rules in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice made by the Civil Service Tribunal and from the interpretation of the Spanish legislation on university diplomas. — It is claimed in this connection that the Tribunal focuses exclusively on the fact that Mr Montagut’s university diploma is not an ‘official diploma’, a fact which he neither contests nor denies, without considering, contrary to its own case-law, that Mr Montagut’s diploma is a university diploma, which is the condition required in the competition notice, namely, ‘a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma’.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the principle of legal certainty. — It is claimed in this regard that the Tribunal, in its judgment, failed properly and correctly to consider the Spanish legislation — Ley de Universidades 6/2001 — in connection with Mr Montagut’s university qualification for the purposes of inclusion on the reserve list, failed to comply with its own case-law in similar cases (F-97/12 Thomé v Commission), and disregarded the conditions of the notice in Title 3, point 2, of the annex to the competition notice.
4.

Fourth to twelfth pleas in law alleging errors of assessment and of law, the Commission having incorrectly characterised the settlement agreements between the applicants, and Niche, Matrix, Teva, Krka and Lupin, as amicable in breach of Article 101 TFEU. — The applicants claim in particular that, in order to classify the restriction agreements ‘by object’, the Commission relied on three factors, so broadly defined that they are ineffective, to distinguish legitimate amicable settlements from anti-competitive agreements (existence of a transfer of value inducing the generics manufacturer to compromise effectively any commercial benefit whatsoever, restriction of competition amounting to restriction of the commercial freedom of the generics manufacturer and potential competition between the parties amounting to the absence of obstacles rendering the future entry of the generics manufacturer onto the market impossible). — Furthermore, by distorting the legitimate objective and the context of the agreements (inter alia, by disregarding, despite reality, the existence of serious technical and regulatory difficulties preventing generics manufacturers from entering the market as well as the existence of parallel legal proceedings), the Commission vitiated, with several errors of assessment, its conclusion that the purpose of the agreements was to restrict competition. — Finally, the analysis of the ‘effects’ of the agreements is vitiated by a contradiction of reasoning and by the fact that the Commission did not use a realistic counterfactual scenario. The contested decision is based entirely on an ex-ante analysis of hypothetical effects, virtually reproducing its analysis per object in breach of case-law, so that, it concluded that there were anti-competitive effects despite the absence of any real effect on the market.
—

in the further alternative, annul the decision of 22 September 2014, resulting from the decision of 26 June 2014, which itself is liable to be annulled in the action of 8 August 2014 (Musso v European Parliament, register No 633447, Case No T-589/14); — on the basis of a formal irregularity, in that the decision of 26 June 2014 has not been signed by the President; — alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision of 17 July 1996, which serves as a basis for the decision of 26 June 2014, was not published; — alternatively, on the basis that the decision of 26 June 2014 contains an inadequate statement of reasons; — alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of reasonable time affecting the exercise of the rights of the defence; — alternatively, on the basis of an infringement of the principle of a vested right;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/45

Action brought on 17 November 2014 — Consolidated Artists v OHIM — Body Cosmetics International (MANGO)

(Case T-761/14)

(2015/C 007/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Consolidated Artists BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Corne, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Body Cosmetics International GmbH (Willich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MANGO’

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 2337/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the General Court has competence to review the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed against the applicant by the Council of the European Union which were adopted in order to give effect to the sanctions regime imposed by the United Nations Security Council in relation to Libya. The applicant submits that the EU measures implementing restrictive measures decided at international level do not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction on the grounds that they give effect to resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Chapter.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 431/38

Action brought on 22 September 2014 — Niche Generics v Commission

(Case T-701/14)

(2014/C 431/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Niche Generics Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Batchelor, M. Healy, Solicitors, and F. Carlin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision;

— annul or in any event reduce the amount of the fine; and

— order the Commission to pay its own costs and the applicant’s costs in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision C(2014) 4955 final of 9 July 2014 in case AT.39612 — Perindopril (Servier).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to apply the correct ‘objective necessity’ legal test to determine whether the patent settlement agreement between the applicant and Servier falls within Article 101(1) TFEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment by not applying the Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation Guidelines to the applicant’s settlement.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by categorising the settlement as a violation ‘by object’ of Article 101(1) TFEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misapplied its own ‘infringement by object’ legal test to the specific facts relating to the applicant.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law by concluding that the settlement agreement had anticompetitive effects.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging in the alternative that the Commission erred in law by not recognising that the settlement agreement satisfies the exemption criteria under Article 101(3) TFEU.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicant’s rights of defence and the principle of sound administration by acting oppressively in its investigation in relation to documents covered by legal privilege.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of equal treatment in its calculation of the fine by treating the applicant differently than Servier without objective justification.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality, its own fining guidelines and prior established practice when it imposed a fine on the applicant.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) by exceeding the maximum 10 % cap on fines.

11. Eleventh plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 TFEU in respect of its fine calculation and its assessment of the gravity of the applicant’s infringement.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/56

Appeal brought on 28 November 2014 by European Central Bank against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 September 2014 in Case F-26/12 Cerafogli v ECB

(Case T-787/14 P)

(2015/C 046/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Central Bank (represented by: E. Carlini and M. López Torres, agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment of 18 September 2014, in Case F-26/12, Cerafogli v ECB;

— rule according to the appellant’s pleas sought at first instance; and

— to award each party its own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging an erroneous extrapolation of the Grolsch case-law to staff cases thereby misinterpreting the scope of the principle of effective judicial protection in the light of Article 47 of the Charter and the inadequacy of the grounds.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure to take account of the rights of defence of the institution, disregarding the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure, and a failure to take account of relevant facts and misinterpretation of the principle of legal certainty.

3. Third plea in law, alleging erroneous conclusions drawn from the nature of a plea of illegality, the misinterpretation of Article 277 TFEU and of the principle of legal certainty.