ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 26 February 2019 — Spadafora v Commission

(Case T-130/19)

(2019/C 139/106)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sergio Spadafora (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision, adopted on 26 November 2018 by the Director-General of OLAF, by which the complaint lodged by the applicant on 24 July 2018 was rejected;

— Annul the decision, adopted by the acting Director-General of OLAF in his capacity as appointing authority, concerning the appointment of the Head of the Unit OLAF.C4 (‘Legal Advice’) as from 1 June 2018;

— Order the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicant for material and non-material damage;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought principally against the decision appointing the Head of the Legal Advice Unit of the Investigation Support Directorate of OLAF as of 1 June 2018, and the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointment decision.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(1) and (2) of Commission Decision C (2016) 3288 final. — The applicant claims in this regard that the assessments contained in the reports of the external consultancy firm were not taken into account by the appointing authority, as required by Article 8(1) of the abovementioned Commission Decision in order for there to have been a lawful procedure for the selection of a Head of Unit.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement of impartiality. — The applicant claims in this regard that Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was not complied with in the present case, since the decision appointing the Head of Unit in question, rather than being the lawful result of a fair selection process, was the objective pursued from the outset by the defendant’s unlawful plan. In the defendant’s unlawful plan, it is possible to identify two principal elements: (i) favouritism towards one of the applicant’s competitors; (ii) debasement of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Appeal Chamber) of 5 December 2017, in Case T-250/16 P.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Bacardi v EUIPO — La Fée (ANGEL’S ENVY)

(Case T-115/19)

(2019/C 139/95)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liechtenstein) (represented by: A. Parassina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Fée LLP (Hertfordahire, 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 mark ANGEL’S ENVY — Application for registration No 13 896 551

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 338/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition against the registration of the word-device mark No. 13 896 551 for goods in class 33;

— transmit the judgment of the General Court of the CJEU to EUIPO;

— order La Feè LLP to pay all costs and expenses.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 27(2) to (4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Boshab v Council

(Case T-111/19)

(2019/C 139/92)

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 8 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

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

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.
Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-57/19)

(2019/C 139/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and his right to respect for his reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to his reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which he is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that an error in law and a manifest error of assessment were committed in considering that the OECD TG 308 study is necessary. The applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erred in law and would have made a manifest error of assessment in failing to distinguish, on one hand, the conditions under which tests must be carried out in order to establish the existence or, otherwise, transformation and/or degradation products of a substance and, on the other hand, the conditions under which an assessment of the persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic properties or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties of any such transformation and/or degradation product must be carried out. As a result, the applicant submits that the defendant’s board of appeal would have erroneously concluded that the OECD TG 308 study requested from the applicant was necessary.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 March 2019 — Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft v EUIPO (eVoter)

(Case T-175/19)

(2019/C 164/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Vereinigung der Bayerischen Wirtschaft eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: L. Grenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of EU word mark eVoter — Registration No 17 900 152

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2019 in Case R 1983/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Breach of EUIPO’s administrative practice;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 February 2019 — Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO — Cabrejos (Sativa)

(Case T-128/19)

(2019/C 182/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hemp Foods Australia Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: M. Holah and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: César Raúl Dávila Cabrejos (Lima, Peru)

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 Sativa — International registration designating the European Union No 1 259 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 1041/2018-2

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.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 February 2019 — WH v EUIPO

(Case T-138/19)

(2019/C 148/58)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: WH (represented by: E. Fontes Vila, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should hold that the dismissal of her action is unjustified and grant her, with full retroactive effect, the promotion which she rightfully deserves.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the defendant’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2018 promotion procedure.

In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of her rights of defence as a result of procedural unfairness.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 April 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

(Case T-244/19)

(2019/C 206/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Café Camelo, SL (Villanueva del Pardillo, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Camel Brand Co. Ltd (Zebbug, Malta)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 15 710 692

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2019 in Case R 1165/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

— order the defendant (and intervener, if he enters an appearance in proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 April 2019 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)

(Case T-239/19)

(2019/C 187/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vinos de Arganza, SL (Toral de los Vados, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, 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 ENCANTO — Application for registration No 15 542 251

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 392/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition;

— allow the registration of the trade mark applied;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Wrongful presumption of the existence of State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU

In the first plea in law, it is claimed that the defendant erred in law in its examination of the contested exemption from network charges by presuming the use of State resources.

In addition, in the examination of the ‘selectivity’ criterion, the reference system was incorrectly and incompletely identified.

It is further claimed that, because of the incomplete identification of the reference system, the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the auditor and the Commission to comply with the rules determining eligible costs. The applicant disputes the position of the Commission which, by its decision, allegedly added a requirement which was not provided for in the legislation applicable to telework matters in particular. The Commission’s conduct was therefore inconsistent with that which it had itself adopted during previous audits involving the applicant.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 April 2019 — Amazon Technologies v EUIPO (ring)

(Case T-270/19)

(2019/C 213/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Amazon Technologies, Inc. (Seattle, Washington, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ‘ring’ — Application for registration No 1 401 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 in Case R 2211/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the respondant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and of the proceedings before the EUIPO Board of Appeal including the necessary expenses of Applicant in both proceedings.

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 April 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB

(Case T-275/19)

(2019/C 213/67)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia), CR (*1), CT (*1) (represented by: O. Behrends, and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the ECB’s decision of 14 February 2019 to conduct an on-site inspection on the premises of PNB Banka AS and its group companies;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB was not the competent supervisory authority with respect to PNB Banka AS at the time of the decision to conduct the on-site inspection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision was not ‘necessary’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the SSM Regulation. (1)

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to duly exercise its discretion pursuant to Article 12(1) of the SSM Regulation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the applicants’ rights to be heard.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated its obligation to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the individual case.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for its decision.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

9. Ninth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment and acted in a discriminatory manner with respect to the applicants.

10. Tenth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 of and recital 75 to the preamble of the SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

(*1) Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).
Action brought on 4 April 2019 — BF v Commission

(Case T-190/19)

(2019/C 213/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: BF (represented by: S. Gesterkamp, lawyer, and C. König, Professor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, as from 18 December 2018, the date of electronic service of the applicant’s second letter requesting the defendant to act, the defendant failed through inaction to fulfil its obligation to issue a decision, to be sent to the applicant as a complainant, closing the preliminary examination procedure in State aid case SA.48706 (RVV Rostocker Versorgungs- und Verkehrs-Holding GmbH and Nordwasser GmbH), that is, either a decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure or a decision not to initiate that procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— as a precaution and in the alternative, should the defendant remedy its failure to act after the action has been brought, order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on the following pleas in law.

The applicant claims, first of all, that the requirements of an action for failure to act have been met, in particular because the factual circumstances were, on the date of service of the second letter requesting the defendant to act, such as to permit a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure under Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589. (1)

The applicant further submits that the defendant, in its administrative letter of 17 December 2018, merely normatively stated a legal monopoly in favour of Nordwasser GmbH, commissioned by means of an in-house transaction, which could rule out a distortion of competition within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, without thereby addressing factual issues such as the factual precondition of favourable treatment.

The applicant also claims that, in submitting its complaint, it had already disproved at an earlier stage of the procedure that a legal monopoly had been formed in accordance with EU law. In any event, the defendant should have expressed its view purely legally on the basis of the established facts and, consequently, at least have issued an actionable decision not to initiate the procedure under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 by no later than December 2018.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging unjust enrichment in favour of the Union caused by the allocation to the budget of the European Union of the amount deducted in respect of the capital appreciation.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles 14 to 16 of the forthcoming Regulation on the internal market in electricity in conjunction with Article 13(2) TEU and the general principle of legal certainty In the context of the first plea, it is claimed that, with the clarification in Article 5(8)(b) and (c) of Annexes I and II of Decision No 02/2019, which is a critical network element, the defendant infringes the basic structure of Articles 14 to 16 of the Regulation on the internal market in electricity, which comes into force on 1 January 2020. Articles 14 to 16 of the Regulation on the internal market in electricity would govern how internal grid congestion will be taken into consideration in the calculation of cross-border trade capacities. Under Article 16(8) of the Regulation on the internal market in electricity, it is irrefutably presumed that there is no discrimination of cross-border electricity flows when, on internal and cross-border network elements, a minimum capacity of 70 % of the network element in question is made available to cross-border trade. Under Article 16(4) of the Regulation on the internal market in electricity, re-dispatch measures must not be applied in excess of the minimum capacity. In addition, in compliance with the minimum capacity, a bidding zone may be re-configured only with the agreement of the relevant Member State. Moreover, the minimum capacity of 70 % is initially to be in the form of a gradual linear trajectory. The minimum capacity of 70 % and the linear trajectory are to take account of the fact that the internal network expansion takes time. This basic structure is reversed by Article 5(8)(b) and (c) of Annexes I and II of the decision, since the minimum capacity of 70 % can be applied to internal network elements only if the transmission system operator can demonstrate that a re-configuration of the bidding zone, or more re-dispatch, or more network expansion, would be less efficient. Furthermore, the efficiency criterion under Article 5(8)(c) of Annexes I and II undermines the established minimum capacity of 70 %, since it is in practice not achievable. The early consideration of remedial actions under the second clause of Article 10(4), Article 10(5) and the second sentence of Article 16(2), Article 3(d)(vii) of Annex I and Article 17(3)(d)(vii) of Annex II infringes Article 16(4) of the Regulation on the internal market in electricity, in accordance with which the maximum capacity should be made available to operators.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 June 2019 — Decathlon v EUIPO — Athlon Custom Sportswear (athlon custom sportswear)

(Case T-349/19)

(2019/C 255/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Decathlon (Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France) (represented by: A. Cléry and C. Devernay, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Athlon Custom Sportswear P.C. (Kallithea, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark athlon custom sportswear — Application for registration No 16 162 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2019 in Case R 1724/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant its request;

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the opposition decision of 6 July 2018 in case No B 002879164;

— refuse the registration of the mark athlon custom sportswear No 016162596;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law