ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/26

Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA

(Case T-134/13)

2013/C 129/50

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy); and Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— Partially annul Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA concerning the inclusion of cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride, cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (collectively referred to as ‘HHPA’) as Substances meeting the criteria set out in Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 of REACH, as it relates to HHPA and its monomers; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment/law: (i) respiratory sensitisers are not covered by Article 57(f) of REACH and (ii) the ECHA did not provide sufficient justification and evidence in order to demonstrate that HHPA was of ‘equivalent concern’ to a carcinogen, mutagen or toxicant for reproduction (‘CMR’), category 1, since: — CMR substances trigger irreversible effects whereas, in the case of HHPA, the effects of respiratory sensitisation are not irreversible; — there is no consumer or worker exposure to HHPA; — the assessment of HHPA is based on data which is old and outdated; and — the assessment did not take into account all relevant data.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence, as the applicants did not have the opportunity to fully defend their case because of the lack of objective criteria for considering whether a substance is of equivalent concern according to Article 57(f) REACH, especially in the case of a respiratory sensitiser such as HHPA, and because ECHA did not take into account all information available or provided by the industry during the commenting period.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, as the ECHA had a choice of measures with respect to HHPA and by identifying HPPA as Substance of Very High Concern (‘SVHC’) caused the applicants disadvantages which are disproportionate in relation to the aims pursued.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)
1.

First plea in law, alleging a violation of the rules concerning the admissibility of the pleas: admissibility of the submissions put forward at the hearing at first instance regarding the absence from the Selection Committee of a Staff Committee representative — violation by the first judges of the duty to state reasons. The appellant considers that the CST, first, infringed the first paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST by failing to take account of the fact that the submissions at issue were based on documents and information which the FRA produced only in the course of the proceedings before the CST and, second, failed to recognise that the submissions at issue must be held to be admissible on the ground that they were closely connected with other pleas submitted in the written procedure. Third, and in any event, the CST erroneously concluded, without any motivation, that the plea was not among the pleas which the Tribunal may raise of its own motion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/26

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-149/13)

2013/C 123/46

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/126/12 — Assistants (AST 3), research sector, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/25

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)

(Case T-127/13)

2013/C 129/49

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 11 December 2012 in Case R 1900/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the action brought by the applicant, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community word mark No 4 782 215‘PRO OUTDOOR’;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘OUTDOOR GARDEN BARBECUE CAMPING’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 22, 24, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, and Rules 48 and 49 of Regulation No 2868/95
1.

By the first plea in law, alleging infringement and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Comune di Milano claims that the Decision is flawed in so far as the Commission found the measures at issue to be attributable to the Comune (and accordingly to the State). According to the Comune, the Commission has not provided any evidence of this, with the result that the measures at issue cannot be categorised as State aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/24

Action brought on 15 March 2013 — HK Intertrade v Council

(Case T-159/13)

2013/C 147/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.71), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 (OJ 22.12.2012, L 356, p.55), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

— Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits five grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of reasons, violation of the right of defence, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant and violated its obligation to give notice to the applicant. Furthermore, the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which failing has been compounded by the failure of the Council to reply to the applicant’s requests for access to documents and for general disclosure. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant is not a ‘front company’ for National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), and in any case the Council has not substantiated that the mere fact that the applicant was established as a subsidiary of NIOC is sufficient to thereby entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State contrary to the aim of the contested measures. Further, the Council has clearly violated the right of defence of the applicant and lastly has made manifest errors of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/36

Action brought on 13 February 2013 — Walcher Meßtechnik v OHIM (HIPERDRIVE)

(Case T-95/13)

2013/C 108/85

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Walcher Meßtechnik GmbH (Kirchzarten, Germany) (represented by S. Walter, lawyer)

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 13 December 2012 in Case R 1779/2012-1;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HIPERDRIVE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/29

Action brought on 5 April 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-191/13)

2013/C 147/53

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul notice of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 — Administrators (AD 6), in the buildings sector, and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-148/13 Kingdom of Spain v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/49

Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg v Commission

(Case T-190/13)

2013/C 156/91

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Gemeente Leidschendam-Voorburg (Leidschendam-Voorburg, Netherlands) (represented by: A. de Groot and J.J.M. Sluijs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Commission Decision C(2013) 87 of 23 January 2013 on State aid SA.24123 (2012/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by the Netherlands — Alleged sale of land below market price by the Municipality of Leidschendam-Voorburg.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and/or of the obligation to state reasons. — In the first place the Commission allowed an unreasonably long period of time to elapse before initiating the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, as a result of which the parties were entitled to assume that the agreement at issue was not incompatible with Article 107(1) TFEU. — In the second place there were errors and omissions in the Commission’s assessment of the facts. — In the third place, the Commission erred in its determination of the facts with regard to financing through State resources.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU. — In the first place the Municipality acted as a private undertaking would have done in the same circumstances. — In the second place Schouten & De Jong Projectontwikkeling BV together with Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling BV did not obtain any benefit that they would not also have obtained via the market in the ordinary course of business.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/27

Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Et Solar Industry and Others v Commission

(Case T-153/13)

2013/C 123/47

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Et Solar Industry Ltd (Taizhou City, China); Et Energy Co. Ltd (Taizhou City); and Dotec Electric Co. Ltd (Taizhou City) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the appeal admissible;

— Annul the Commission’s Decision set out in its letter of 3rd January 2013 deciding that the applicants market economy treatment (‘MET’) claim will no longer be considered;

— Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicants legal costs and expenses for this procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the grounds that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by infringing and failing to respect the applicants’ rights to the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality thereby unlawfully terminating without due cause the applicants claim for market economy treatment in the context of an anti-dumping investigation.
—

annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste in so far as it adds to the examples of products constituting packaging ‘rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material (e.g. plastic film, aluminium, paper) is wound’;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 156/49

Action brought on 4 April 2013 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)

(Case T-188/13)

2013/C 156/90

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Trebur, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walkerstone, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2013 in Case R 132/2012-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOTFALL’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 30 — Community trade mark No 9 089 681

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Healing Herbs Ltd

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the general principle of equal treatment

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/36

Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 in Case F-67/12, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-226/13 P)

2013/C 171/69

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;

— Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

These proceedings are brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 February 2013 rejecting as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking: (i) annulment of the decision by which the European Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising as a result of the fact that a letter concerning the manner in which the judgment of the Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 Marcuccio v Commission was to be enforced was sent to the lawyer who represented him in the appeal proceedings against that judgment; and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage purportedly caused as a result of that act.

In support of his appeal, the appellant alleges an absolute failure to state reasons for the rejection of his claim for compensation, by reason, inter alia, of failure to make inquiries, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, arbitrary reasoning and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of:

the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union;

the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature;

the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/32

Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Imax/OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)

(Case T-198/13)

2013/C 171/60

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Tainan County, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul OHIM’s Fifth Board of Appeal’s decision of 23 January 2013 in Case R 740/2012-5; and

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and, if the other party in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal intervenes, the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IMAX’ for goods in classes 9, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark registration No 9 392 556

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations No 4 411 658 and No 4 411 641 of the figurative mark ‘Himax’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 207/53

Action brought on 24 May 2013 — Husky CZ/OHIM — Husky of Tostock (HUSKY)

(Case T-287/13)

2013/C 207/87

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Husky CZ s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Husky of Tostock Ltd (Woodbridge, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision of OHIM’s First Board of Appeal of 14 March 2013;

— Order OHIM and Husky of Tostock Limited to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘HUSKY’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark No 152 546

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the Community trade mark registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 178/15

Action brought on 22 April 2013 — HTC Sweden/OHIM — Vermop Salmon (TWISTER)

(Case T-230/13)

2013/C 178/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: HTC Sweden AB (Söderköping, Sweden) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Overturn the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2013, joined Cases R 1873/2011-1 and R 1881/2011-1;

— Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘TWISTER’ for goods in classes 3, 7 and 21 — Community trade mark registration No 4 617 932

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The application of invalidity was based on Articles 53(1)(a) and 8 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.