ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.

In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the legality of the challenged decision is also contested, given that the ‘new active substance’ status should have been examined again upon the filing of Mylan’s objections which were submitted during the application phase. Thus, the EMA has allegedly failed to perform its duties appropriately, in particular its duty to perform an effective and careful assessment and to state reasons, pursuant to Article 296 TFEU, which in turn renders the challenged decision illegal.
Action brought on 9 October 2020 — CNMSE and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-633/20)

(2021/C 9/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Coordination nationale médicale santé — environnement (CNMSE) (Paris, France) and five other applicants (represented by: G. Tumerelle, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare EU regulation No 2020/1043 void.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, based on the consequences and risks that the contested regulation (1) entails. The applicants take the view, in this respect, that there was no justification for removing all measures for assessing the risks associated with genetically modified organisms. They also criticise the lack of public consultation, lack of information and labelling and lack of scientific grounds.

2. Second plea in law, based on defects affecting the formal legality of the contested act. The applicants complain that the procedure followed did not involve public consultation, failed to observe the differentiated procedure laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2001/18 (2), and breached essential procedural requirements. They also plead lack of an adequate legal basis and error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, based on defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested act. The applicants allege, in this respect, non-compliance with the precautionary principle, non-compliance with the fundamental principle of EU law in respect of the right to protection of legitimate expectations and the acquired right to protection of health and the environment. The applicants also plead breach of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality and a manifest error of assessment.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2020/1043 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 on the conduct of clinical trials with and supply of medicinal products for human use containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms intended to treat or prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19) (OJ 2020 L 231, p. 12).

(2) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).
Action brought on 30 October 2020 — One Voice v ECHA

(Case T-663/20)

(2021/C 9/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: One Voice (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Ghersi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation;

— rule that the ECHA Board of Appeal infringed the provisions of the REACH Regulation; and therefore

— annul the ECHA Board of Appeal’s decision of 18 August 2020 No A-009-2018;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation (1) and the REACH Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of Article 18 of the Cosmetics Regulation when applying the REACH Regulation and acted contrary to the objective pursued by the Cosmetics Regulation in the area of animal testing. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the ECHA does not have competence to give a binding interpretation of the relationship between the Cosmetics Regulation and the REACH Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Reach Regulation. In this respect, the applicant submits, inter alia, that the Reach Regulation establishes the principle of the prohibition of animal testing, except where there is no alternative. No such exception was identified by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November on cosmetic products (OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59).

(2) 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 and corrigendum OJ 2007 L 136, p. 3).
Action brought on 30 November 2020 — OJ v Commission

(Case T-709/20)

(2021/C 28/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: OJ (represented by: H. von Harpe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) of 1 September 2020, ref. Ares(2020)s. 5088474, and all related acts;

— reopen competition EPSO/AD/380/19 for the recruitment reserve for the European Commission of administrators (AD7/AD9) in the field of international cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries, in accordance with the rules and, in particular, with a reasonable period for the applicant to register;

— in the alternative, repeat open competition EPSO/AD/380/19 for the recruitment reserve for the European Commission of administrators (AD7/AD9) in the field of international cooperation and management of aid to non-EU countries, in accordance with the rules and, in particular, with a reasonable deadline for applications; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) concerning the refusal to allow the applicant to take part in the computer-based multiple-choice tests outside the test period laid down for open competition EPSO/AD/380/19.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging unequal treatment — The defendant acted in a manner which amounted to unequal treatment. It did not compare comparable situations. Due to his work for an EU delegation, the applicant suffered from security and mobility restrictions which did not allow him to travel abroad at short notice. In addition, in his absence, there was no supervisor for his children. — It required lengthy planning in advance to travel abroad from his place of employment. EPSO should have duly appreciated and taken that into account. Instead, it compares the applicant's situation in his place of employment with other applicants who, however, live in countries with a much better security situation. The result is that candidates such as the applicant would be constantly disadvantaged because of a security situation for which they are not responsible.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Schuhwaren)

(Case T-682/20)

(2021/C 19/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland)

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 1 451 421-0185

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 1650/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 December 2020 — Degode v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea)

(Case T-715/20)

(2021/C 35/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DEGODE — Dermago Development GmbH (Petershagen, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leo Pharma A/S (Ballerup, Denmark)

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 word mark Skinovea — Application for registration No 17 898 565

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2020 in Case R 337/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 November 2020 — Schmid v EUIPO — Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE)

(Case T-700/20)

(2021/C 28/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gabriele Schmid (Halbenrain, Austria) (represented by: A. Ginzburg, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Landeskammer für Land- und Forstwirtschaft in Steiermark (Graz, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Steirisches Kürbiskernöl g.g.A GESCHÜTZTE GEOGRAFISCHE ANGABE in the colours blue, yellow, green, (creamy) white — European Union trade mark No 10 108 454

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2020 in Case R 2186/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 22 December 2020 — Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission

(Case T-762/20)

(2021/C 53/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical Co. Ltd (Chongqing, China), Sinopec Great Wall Energy & Chemical (Ningxia) Co. Ltd (Lingwu City, China), Central-China Company, Sinopec Chemical Commercial Holding Co. Ltd (Wuhan, China) (represented by: J. Cornelis, F. Graafsma and E. Vermulst, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (1);

— orders the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘Basic Regulation’) mandates an approach and creates an exception that is not provided for in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘ADA’), and therefore cannot be applied.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of article 2(10) Basic Regulation, by the deduction of a notional commission from the export price charged by Sinopec Central China and a manifest error of assessment in finding that Sinopec Central China acts as an agent working on a commission basis, by not observing the fair comparison requirement and by making an upward adjustment to the normal value for non-recoverable VAT.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 18(1) and 18(5) Basic Regulation as well as Article 6.8 of and Annex II to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by using a source for facts available that is punitive and is not the most fitting or appropriate information.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) Basic Regulation and manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) basic Regulation by failing to conduct a segmented price undercutting analyses, by failing to make the necessary adjustments for quality differences and by failing to establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the applicants’ rights of defence by refusing to disclose certain information necessary to be able to comment on the undercutting analysis.

(1) OJ 2020, L 315, p. 1.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations in that the conditions for the application of that article are not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant claims inter alia that the authority has not shown that he knew or ought to have known that he was not entitled to the expatriation allowance since his sole prior appointment, that is 2009.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 19 (a) of the Basic Regulation and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence as well as of the principles of proportionality and equality of arms. The applicant argues that it did not receive a proper pre-disclosure and that the system of pre-disclosure foreseen by the Basic Regulation vis-à-vis importers is unlawful.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(6a)(a) Basic Regulation by the defendant’s manifest errors of assessment in misinterpreting the wording of Article 2(6a)(a) of the Basic Regulation in considering that Mexican financial statements were not readily available, in breaching its duty of care by failing to consider meaningful data that would discard Turkey as the appropriate representative country, and in not selecting Mexico as the most appropriate representative country.
—

as to the other rights based on discriminatory treatment between the applicant and other EU servants: — declare that the applicant should have been recruited as a member of the temporary staff of one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicant in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, concerning his remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of subsequent employment; — order the first three defendants to compensate the applicant for the loss of remuneration, pension, allowances and benefits caused by the infringements of EU law referred to in the present application; — order them to pay him interest on those amounts; — fix a time limit for the parties to set that allowance, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicant should have been recruited, the average increase in remuneration, the development of his career, the allowances which he should then have received under those temporary staff contracts, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicant;
Action brought on 22 January 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-34/21)

(2021/C 79/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 25 June 2020 on State Aid SA.57153 (2020/N) — Germany — COVID-19 — Aid to Lufthansa; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied its communication Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak (1) (the ‘Temporary Framework’) and misused its powers by finding that Deutsche Lufthansa AG is eligible to the aid, failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available, finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, mandating insufficient slot divestitures, and failing to impose an effective ban on aggressive expansion by the beneficiary.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU by finding that the aid addresses a serious disturbance in the German economy, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’), and by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated the general principles of non-discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the European Commission violated its duty to state reasons.

(1) Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak, OJ C 91I/1 of 20 March 2020, as amended.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2021 — Advanced Organic Materials v EUIPO — Swiss Pharma International (ADVASTEROL)

(Case T-6/21)

(2021/C 62/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Organic Materials, SA (Pilar, Argentina) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swiss Pharma International AG (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Defendant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ADVASTEROL — Application for registration No 14 525 521

Proceedings before the EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 October 2020 in Case R 781/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as, by dismissing the appeal of Advanced Organic Materials, SA, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division, which partially upheld opposition B 2 624 370, refusing some of the goods covered by European Union trade mark No 14 525 521 ADVASTEROL (word mark);

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

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
—

order the Union, represented by the Commission, to redress the damage sustained by Cargolux because of the Commission’s failure to pay the Default Interest Amount Payable and Compound Interest Amount Payable pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, in compliance with the judgment of 16 December 2015, Cargolux Airlines International SA v Commission (Case T-39/11), and therefore pay the following amounts, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, Article 268 TFEU and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU: i. an amount equal to the Default Interest Amount Payable, i.e. interest on the sum of EUR 39 900 000 at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 %, for the period between 15 February 2011 and 5 February 2016, which results in an amount of EUR 8 075 972,03 or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate; ii. an amount equal to the Compound Interest Amount Payable, i.e. interest on the amount of the Default Interest Amount Payable for the period between 5 February 2016 and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed (or, in the event that the Court rejects Cargolux’s request for the Compound Interest Amount Payable to run from 5 February 2016, at the very least for the period between the date of the application and the date of actual payment by the Commission of the amount claimed), at the European Central Bank interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 November 2010 (namely, 1 %), increased by 3,5 % (or, failing that, at the interest rate the General Court considers appropriate);
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)

(Case T-28/21)

(2021/C 88/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 4 415 063

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2013/2018-4

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 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;