ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 August 2022 — Sberbank of Russia v Commission and SRB

(Case T-525/22)

(2022/C 441/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sberbank of Russia OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Rovetta, M. Campa, M. Pirovano, M. Moretto and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision SRB/EES/2022/21 on the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Sberbank d.d., issued by the Single Resolution Board on 1 March 2022, together with the Valuation Report 1 issued by the Single Resolution Board on 27 February 2022 and the Valuation Report 2 issued by the Single Resolution Board on 27 or 28 February 2022;

— annul the European Commission decision (EU) 2022/948 of 1 March 2022 endorsing the resolution scheme for Sberbank d.d.; (1)

— order the Single Resolution Board and the European Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

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 infringement of essential procedural requirements.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and breach of the right to effective judicial protection and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the overall evaluation of the conditions related to the resolution scheme and breach of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (2) as well as breach of Article 39 of Directive 2014/59/EU, (3) and infringement of the fundamental right to property and of the freedom to conduct a business.

(1) OJ 2022 L 164, p. 65.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(3) Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2022 — Consultora de Telecomunicaciones Optiva Media/EUIPO — Optiva Canada (OPTIVA MEDIA)

(Case T-601/22)

(2022/C 441/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Consultora de Telecomunicaciones Optiva Media SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Rivadulla Oliva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optiva Canada Inc. (Mississauga, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark OPTIVA MEDIA (Claiming the colours ‘green’ and ‘black’) — European Union trade mark No 10 939 767

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2022 in joined cases R 1533/2021-5 and R 1740/2021-5

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 11 October 2022 — Beijing Unicorn Technology v EUIPO — WD Plus (Device of a circle with two sharp points)

(Case T-631/22)

(2022/C 463/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Beijing Unicorn Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and S. Clotten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WD Plus GmbH (Hannover, Germany)

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 figurative mark representing a device of a circle with two sharp points — Application for registration No 18 278 716

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 July 2022 in Case R 246/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.

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 31 October 2022 — Nagolimad — Serviços Internacionais v Commission

(Case T-668/22)

(2022/C 482/38)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Nagolimad — Serviços Internacionais, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Afonso and J. Ferreira Faria, advogadas)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 November 2022 — United Shipping Group v EUIPO — Baulies Gómez (UNITED WIND LOGISTICS)

(Case T-666/22)

(2022/C 472/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: United Shipping Group GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bornholdt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pablo Baulies Gómez (Rocafort, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark UNITED WIND LOGISTICS in the colours blue and black — International registration designating the European Union No 1 531 891

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 August 2022 in Case R 134/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— vary the contested decision to find that the appeal is well-founded, annul decision No B3 131 303 of the Opposition Division of 30 November 2021, and reject the opposition to the designation of the European Union in international registration No 1 531 891;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 9 November 2022 — CMT v EUIPO — Camomilla (CAMOMILLA italia)

(Case T-694/22)

(2023/C 7/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: P. Marzano, G. Rubino and F. Cordova, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camomilla Srl (Assago, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CAMOMILLA italia — EU trade mark No 9 287 038

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2022 in Case R 1738/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— with regard to the goods in Class 25: declare the limitation of the contested mark and, consequently, refer the case back to EUIPO for a new assessment of the affinity between the goods in Class 25 covered by the contested mark and the goods in Class 24 covered by the earlier mark, indicating the principles of law with which EUIPO must comply in the assessment;

— in the alternative, or if the Court deems it appropriate, by upholding the present action, vary the contested decision and, consequently, confirm the validity of the contested mark for ‘clothing’ in Class 25, without prejudice, in any event, to the validity of the other goods claimed in that class, which are not covered by the declaration of invalidity;

— with regard to the goods in Class 18: by upholding the present action, vary the contested decision and, consequently, confirm the validity of the contested mark in respect of the following goods: Class 18: Goods made of these materials and not included in other classes [leather and imitations of leather]; Trunks; Big umbrellas; Beach bags; Briefcases, cases [leather articles]; Card cases [notecases]; Chain mesh purses; Handbags; Haversacks; Pocket wallets; Purses; Rucksacks; School bags; School bags; Shopping bags; Bags for sports; Vanity cases, not fitted; Wheeled shopping bags;

— in any event, order the applicant for a declaration of invalidity to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those relating to the decisions in the earlier proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 October 2022 — Claro v EUIPO — Claranet Europe (Claro)

(Case T-661/22)

(2023/C 7/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Claro SA (São Paulo, Brazil) (represented by: J. Ferreira Sardinha, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Claranet Europe Ltd (St Helier, Jersey)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark in red and white Claro — European Union trade mark No 16 172 934

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2022 in Case R 1674/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)a read together with 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 November 2022 — Khudaynatov v Council

(Case T-733/22)

(2023/C 24/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Eduard Yurevich Khudaynatov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, D. Rovetta and M. Moretto, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022 including the applicant’s name in the annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP applicable until 15 March 2023;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name in the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 and

— 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, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-732/22, Deripaska v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes, either entirely or at least in part, the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (2) as regards the protection of commercial interests The redactions infringe additional, parallel legal provisions of the EMA, which were to be taken into consideration for the purposes of interpretation and were disregarded in the contested decision. Further, the decision contains an error in law in so far as it sets out from the premiss that the documents contained commercially confidential information, and there is no comprehensible evidence that harm would be caused to Biontech through the publication of the SO1a documents, which was required to publish them as a condition of authorisation. Accordingly, the EMA is also required, as part of its official function, to grant the applicant complete access to the data without making an error in law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 November 2022 — Sonasurf Internacional and Others v Commission

(Case T-723/22)

(2023/C 24/86)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicants: Sonasurf Internacional — Shipping Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal), Mastshipping — Shipping, Sociedade Unipessoal Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal), Latin Quarter — Serviços Marítimos Internacionais Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal) (represented by: R. Bordalo Junqueiro, S. Fernandes de Almeida, R. F. Costa and P. G. Marques, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— recognise the applicants’ legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU;

— declare that the present action for annulment has been brought in due form and is admissible under Article 263 TFEU;

— annul the contested decision pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings together with the expenses incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-718/22, Eutelsat Madeira v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Hilza v Commission

(Case T-693/22)

(2023/C 24/71)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Hilza — Pharmaceuticals, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
—

The applicant claims in this regard that since, under Article 75(2) of the decision of 19 May and 9 July ‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, the old-age pension rights acquired prior to the date of entry into force of the Statute ‘shall be maintained’, the previously in force reference to national legislation, provided for by the so-called PEAM, must be understood as a cross-reference (to the rules in force at that time), in as much as the pension rights of former members of the European Parliament acquired before the entry into force of the Statute cannot be affected by subsequent regulations.
Action brought on 29 November 2022 — Parliament v Union Technique du Bâtiment and Argest

(Case T-749/22)

(2023/C 24/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Kazek and K. Wójcik, acting as Agents, and by N. Charrel, T. Gaspar and M. Jolly, lawyers)

Defendants: Union Technique du Bâtiment SA (Romainville, France) and Argest SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the companies Union Technique du Bâtiment SA and Argest SA jointly and severally to pay it a total sum of EUR 161 200, together with statutory interest accruing from the date on which the present application was filed, capitalised to produce interest itself;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that it has a right to compensation under the ten-year warranty provided by the companies Union Technique du Bâtiment SA and Argest SA for defects discovered to be affecting the thatched roof of Maison Jean Monnet in Bazoches-sur-Guyonne.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce (Shoes)

(Case T-758/22)

(2023/C 35/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

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 8 367 742-0013

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1876/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Caledonian v Commission

(Case T-711/22)

(2023/C 35/87)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Caledonian — Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 December 2022 — Desimo v EUIPO — Red Bull (EL TORO ROJO)

(Case T-778/22)

(2023/C 45/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Desimo, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: S. Estima Martins, J. Mioludo and D. Simões, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria)

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 figurative mark EL TORO ROJO — Application for registration No 18 026 515

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2022 in Case R 326/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and fully dismiss the opposition proceeding No B003089768;

— grant the registration of the trade mark at issue to all the designated goods and services;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 December 2022 — Azalee Cosmetics v EUIPO — L’Oréal (UK) (LA CRÈME LIBRE)

(Case T-765/22)

(2023/C 45/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Azalee Cosmetics (Paris, France) (represented by: I. Tribouillet, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’Oréal (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 figurative trade mark LA CREME LIBRE — Application for registration No 18 252 904

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 October 2022 in Case R 229/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs and reimburse the applicant for all the costs incurred for the purposes of the opposition and appeal proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/24

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 — Nardone v Commission

(Case T-57/99) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Occupational disease - Exposure to asbestos and other substances)

(2009/C 32/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Albert Nardone (Piétrain, Belgium) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, then by L. Levi)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, agent, and J. L. Fagnart, lawyer)

Re:

Application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the wrongful conduct of the Commission in exposing the applicant to an atmosphere filled with dust and contaminated by asbestos.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. orders the Commission to pay to Mr Albert Nardone damages of EUR 66 000;

2. dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. orders each party to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999.