ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the IPCEI Communication, (2) by committing errors of law and manifest errors of assessment by deeming the aid to be compatible with the internal market. This plea is divided into four sub-pleas: — first, the applicant argues that the Commission has erred by finding that the Fixed Link is in the European interest; — second, it is argued that the Commission has erred by finding that the aid is necessary, as the aid has no incentive effect and does not satisfy the requirements for the counterfactual scenario and the existence of alternative projects set out in the IPCEI Communication. Also, the Commission has erred in the contested decision by relying on an erroneously low IRR, as it calculated it on the basis of a very short lifetime of the project of 40 years, which does not correspond to the true lifetime of the infrastructure, i.e., the period during which Femern A/S will be able to economically exploit the Fixed Link; — third, the applicant argues that Commission has erred by holing that the aid is proportionate, as the aid is unlimited in time. The Commission also committed a number of manifest errors in the funding gap analysis. The Commission has erroneously relied on the above very short lifetime of the project, which has resulted in a higher proportion of costs compared to the revenues from the operation of the Fixed Link; the Commission has underestimated the projected revenues of Femern A/S and overestimated the projected costs, by including in particular operating costs in the funding gap calculation. Finally, the Commission erroneously concludes that the aid element consists in the interest rate paid by Femern A/S to the Danish State, whereas, due to the fact that no private operator was willing to invest in the project without significant State aid, the aid element consists of the entire amount of the State loans and the amounts of the loans covered by the State guarantees. — fourth, it is argued that the Commission has erred by concluding that the aid does not cause an undue distortion of competition, as the aid leads to the creation of a dominant position for Femern A/S in the relevant market, it creates overcapacity, and allows Femern A/S to use below-cost pricing. The Commission failed to acknowledge that these negative effects outweigh any positive effects created by the aid.
Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission

(Case T-371/20)

(2020/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)

— order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

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 the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2020 — Grangé and Van Strydonck v EUIPO — Nema (âme)

(Case T-442/20)

(2020/C 297/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Isaline Grangé (Edegem, Belgium) and Alizée Van Strydonck (Strombeek-Bever, Belgium) (represented by: M. De Vroey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nema Srl (San Lazzaro di Savena, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark âme — Application for registration No 17 895 139

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 2960/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and any intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 August 2020 — Eos Products v EUIPO (Shape of a spherical container)

(Case T-489/20)

(2020/C 313/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Eos Products Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Stolzenburg-Wiemer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for tridimensional EU mark (Shape of a spherical container) — Application for registration No 15 903 081

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 2017/2020-4

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 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 July 2020 — BPCE and Others v SRB

(Case T-448/20)

(2020/C 304/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and 44 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul decision SRB/ES/2020/24 on the calculation of the 2020 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Articles 4(2), 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-444/20, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 August 2020 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)

(Case T-487/20)

(2020/C 329/35)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘imot.bg’ — Application for registration No 18 001 398

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2020 in Case R 2270/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order registration of the mark at issue;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

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

The applicant submits that the Commission erred in finding that part of the compensation paid by the State during the period analysed should be attributed to the period before 2011, and specifically to the period from 2007 to 2010. Although the Commission seeks to argue that the budget reference line corresponds to the supply of a universal public service by Correos in the years 2008, 2009 or 2010, and that accordingly it must be considered to be aid attributable to those periods, which should have been set out in the budget code preceded by the years ‘2007’, ‘2008’, ‘2009’ or ‘2010’, respectively, that was not, however, what occurred. On the contrary, the budget reference lines were identified as 2011 1701 491N 441 and 2013 1703 491N 442. That means that those budget reference lines were attributed to a service carried out and assessed during that annual period, and not during another annual period.
—

Infringement of Article 128(2)(c) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union in that the European Parliament wrongly interprets that article as requiring the possession of a clean criminal record. However, that article relates to job-related safeguards, whereby an entry in the excerpt from the criminal record is relevant only if it is of such a kind as to impair a job-related function or if it is of such a kind as to have an impact on the exercise of the function in practice. The grounds of the contested decisions are contrary to the abovementioned article since, in the second contested decision, the defendant confirms that there is no current, genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the proper performance of the duties, given that there are merely ‘doubts’ relating to the applicant's moral integrity.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DEVIN)

(Case T-526/20)

(2020/C 339/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Devin EAD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, G. de Villegas and C. Haine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

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 DEVIN — European Union trade mark No 9 408 865

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2020 in Case R 2535/2019-1

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 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles (7)(1)(c) and 7(3) or Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article (7)(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringement of the principle of proportionality and point 18.7 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, the defendant based its decision on information that was not contained in the tender documents and on which it did not allow it to comment before drawing adverse consequences from it. Moreover, the applicant adds that, if the defendant considered that the guarantor company did not meet the applicable selection criteria, it should not have rejected the tender as a whole, but should have required it to be replaced.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 September 2020 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva)

(Case T-551/20)

(2020/C 359/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

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 Riviva — Application for registration No 16 888 174

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2020 in Case R 2420/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First and second pleas in law, alleging incorrect application and misinterpretation of the legal rules and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — The applicant argues in this regard that an amendment to structural commitments such as that here at issue may be authorised by the Commission solely in exceptional circumstances, that is to say, when changes occur in market conditions that are (i) significant, (ii) durable and (iii) unforeseeable. In addition, (iv) the competitive reason that led to the adoption of the Commitments must have disappeared. The conditions in points (i) to (iv) are cumulative. However, none of those conditions is satisfied in the present case. — As for the condition of significant scope (point (i)) and that of the disappearance of competitive reasons connected to the Commitments (point (iv)), the assessment of the evidence carried out by the Commission appears, in the view of the applicant, to be entirely distorted, and the reading and analysis of that evidence appear to be manifestly unreasonable.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the the European Commission violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination, free provision of services and free establishment that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. By authorising Spain to reserve aid to undertakings established in Spain, the European Commission ignored the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis to the pan-European airlines and their role in the air connectivity of Spain. Article 107(3)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.
—

The applicants further refer to an insufficient and incomplete analysis by the defendant regarding the imputability of the capital injection and in particular to: — insufficient and incomplete analysis as the Commission has not relied on accurate, reliable and consistent data; — serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision to grant the capital injection was adopted by PostNord Group AB and not by PostNord AB; — serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision of PostNord AB’s Board of Directors to grant the capital injection is not imputable to the Danish and Swedish States.
1.

First plea in law, alleging illegality of the criterion used to justify the non-renewal of the applicant’s contract for an indefinite period, in that it does not allow the interests of the service to be identified.
—

annul Commission decision SA.40349 (2020/MI2) B2/AD/MKL/D*2020/091023 of 28 July 2020, rejecting their complaint of 2 March 2020 concerning State aid to photovoltaic energy producers by the French State under the pricing decrees of 10 July 2006 and 12 January and 31 August 2010, on the ground that: — the applicants must be classified as ‘interested parties’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, and that on that basis, under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 they are entitled to submit a complaint to the Commission concerning illegal aid; — the Commission is required to open a preliminary examination without undue delay in respect of any complaint concerning illegal aid, in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589; — the Commission is required to ensure that the provisions of the TFEU relating to State aid are applied and cannot fail to act; — the applicants used the standard form provided for by Article 33 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard to the welfare of staff and the principle of proportionality. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the systematic nature of the medical examinations decided on by the defendant following each medical certificate of incapacity is such as to undermine his state of health by obliging him to bring a number of appeals and infringes the abovementioned principles.
Action brought on 5 October 2020 — FJ and Others v EEAS

(Case T-619/20)

(2020/C 433/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: FJ and five other applicants (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the applicants’ pay slips for the month of December 2019 in so far as they apply, for the first time, correction coefficients, which were prescribed with retroactive effect from 1 April and 1 July 2019;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas in law, alleging infringement of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), infringement of the principle of equal treatment in terms of equivalence of purchasing power, and manifest error of assessment.

The applicants claim that, in order to set the correction coefficient applicable to the salary of the applicants posted outside the European Union, EUROSTAT should collect data specific to their place of employment, in accordance with the rules for application of Articles 64 and 65 of the Staff Regulations, as laid down in Annex XI thereto.

They also argue that the coefficients, which were laid down in the context of an international collaboration agreement between EUROSTAT, the OECD and the UN, fell from January 2018 to January 2019 from 239,7 to 94,0 whereas, for that same period, the coefficients applied to the salaries of UN personnel were increased to take account of inflation. In 2017, the Congolese franc (CDF) underwent a sharp devaluation as against the dollar (USD) and the euro, which, coupled with substantial inflation, resulted in a significant increase in prices in USD, according to the analysis of the IMF.

The applicants take the view that the defendant has not explained how the coefficients applied take account of those essential elements.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2020 — Dr. August Wolff v EUIPO — Combe International (Vagisan)

(Case T-679/20)

(2021/C 19/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Combe International Ltd (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor 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 word mark Vagisan — International registration designating the European Union No 10 985 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2020 in Case R 2459/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO No 000018101 C of 11 September 2019,

— order the EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by proceedings before the EUIPO.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural safeguards laid down for administrative and disciplinary investigations, and infringement of the principles of impartiality and sound administration. In that regard, the applicant claims that the administrative investigation concerning him is vitiated by numerous formal and procedural irregularities.
1.

First plea in law, put forward principally, alleging failure to adequately state reasons. The applicant takes the view that the statement of reasons consists of literal assessments, which are not consistent with the grades awarded. Moreover, the selection panel has not communicated the assessment criteria adopted before the tests, so that neither the applicant nor the appointing authority were able to check the legality of those criteria.
Action brought on 5 November 2020 — Hansol Paper v Commission

(Case T-693/20)

(2021/C 19/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hansol Paper Co. Ltd (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: B. Servais and V. Crochet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1524 of 19 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain heavyweight thermal paper originating in the Republic of Korea in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— order the Commission and any intervener who may be allowed to support the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s methodology for the determination of the undercutting and underselling margins of the applicant violates Articles 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of the Basic Regulation.