ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision breaches Article 107(1) TFEU, inasmuch as the Commission exceeded its margin of discretion in applying the market economy investor principle by insufficiently establishing the facts in the context of its ex ante profitability analysis which was drawn up subsequently. In this regard, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in not taking into account, as airport revenue, the aid-rules-compliant provision of aid to KLU for the purposes of financing its marketing measures. Furthermore, the Commission did not sufficiently assess the market value of the services provided by the applicant and did not take them into account in the decision, even though the services in question were provided by the applicant at prices reflecting normal market conditions.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to investigate and to appraise carefully and impartially all relevant aspects of the case, in particular as regards AML/CFT risks and compliance with the precepts.
—

annul the defendant’s decision of 5 October 2017 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law by concluding that the ‘court proceedings’ indent of Article 4.2 of Regulation 1049/2001/EC was not engaged in the present case, on the basis that the documentation was not a document ‘prepared for the purpose of court proceedings’. As a matter of law, the defendant should have concluded that the exemption was engaged.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 July 2018 — Battelle Memorial Institute v EUIPO (HEATCOAT)

(Case T-469/18)

(2018/C 341/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Battelle Memorial Institute (Columbus, Ohio, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark HEATCOAT — Application for registration No 16 865 263

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May2018 in Case R 36/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety; and

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant, including the costs of the proceedings 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 July 2018 — Aquino and Others v Parliament

(Case T-402/18)

(2018/C 364/14)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and 30 other applicants (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— consequently: — annul the decision of 2 July 2018 requisitioning interpreters for 3 July 2018 as well as future decisions requisitioning interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018; — order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 1 000 per applicant; — order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-401/18, SFIE-PE v Parliament.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 August 2018 — Dermatest v EUIPO (DERMATEST)

(Case T-495/18)

(2018/C 352/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dermatest Gesellschaft für allergologische Forschung u. Vertrieb von Körperpflegemitteln mbH (Münster, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DERMATEST’ — Application for registration No 17 542 986

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 in Case R 426/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the illegality of the individual decision contested in the present case on the following grounds; — Infringement of the precautionary principle, the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, of the principle of sound administration and of their acquired rights; — Infringement of the right to family and of the right to education; — Infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination; — The absence of any balancing of interests and failure to observe the principle of proportionality of the adopted measure.
Action brought on 14 August 2018 — XB v ECB

(Case T-484/18)

(2018/C 373/15)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: XB (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

— annul the decisions of 6 November 2017 and 4 December 2017 informing the applicant that he was not entitled to certain allowances (household allowance, child allowances, education allowances and pre-school allowance);

— accordingly, order the payment of the respective amounts from the requested dates onwards, increased by late interest (ECB rate + 2 points). It should be considered that corrective payments not related to the month during which they were paid should be subject to the tax to which they would have been subject had they been made at the proper time, in accordance with Regulation (EEC, EURATOM, ECSC) No 260/68; (1)

— if need be, annul the decision of 5 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s grievance procedure, lodged on 29 March 2018;

— if need be, annul the decisions of 2 February 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request for administrative review of 15 December 2017;

— order the defendant to pay all 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 that the ECB’s conditions of short-term employment and its rules for short-term employment are illegal (plea of illegality). — The ECB’s conditions of short-term employment and its rules for short-term employment infringe, first, the rights of the child and the principles of family protection and non-discrimination laid down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, second, the principle of non-discrimination between temporary and permanent workers, and, third, the principle of non-discrimination and of equality of taxpayers.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of collective rights, as a result of lack of proper consultation of the ECB Staff Committee in the adoption of the ECB’s conditions and rules for short-term employment.

(1) Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for the benefit of the European Communities (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 37).
Action brought on 16 August 2018 — Neda Industrial Group/Council

(Case T-490/18)

(2018/C 399/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neda Industrial Group (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: L. Vidal, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— cancel the decision taken by the Council of the European Union on 6 June 2018 to maintain the sanctions against the applicant; and

— order the Council to pay all of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the Council’s decision of 6 June 2018 to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 (2).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of law. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council fails to demonstrate that the applicant provides an intentional support for Iran’s proliferation-sensitive nuclear activities, which allegedly is the legal ground for the applicant’s enlisting in Annex IX of Regulation No 267/2012. — The applicant further claims that the lack of communication of any supporting evidence by the Council to the applicant constitutes a violation of the principle of effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful due to an error of fact. — In this regard, the applicant submits that considering its activities and the services it provides, it is unrelated to sanctioned entities or to any nuclear activities whatsoever.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful because it infringes the general principle of proportionality. — In this regard, the applicant claims that its inclusion in the list of entities subject to restrictive measures and the refusal to withdraw the applicant from that list are neither appropriate nor necessary to reach the objectives pursued by Regulation No 267/2012, and have caused disproportionate damages to the applicant.

(1) Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 September 2018 — Peek & Cloppenburg v EUIPO — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek)

(Case T-534/18)

(2018/C 392/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Peek’ — Application for registration No 1 915 438

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2018 in Case R 115/2005-1

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 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the Markengesetz (German Law on Trade Marks; ‘MarkenG’);

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with paragraph 15(2) of the MarkenG on the basis of a likelihood of confusion;
—

declare and adjudge that the individual decision no longer to grant the applicant the reimbursement of the school fees in connection with her child as of the 2017/2018 school year, processed on 13 November 2017 and reflected for the first time in her pay slip for December 2017, is annulled;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the Commission of the notion of advantage, in that it mistakes the concept of advantage for that of selectivity, finds that there is an economic advantage on the basis of the combined effect of measures which individually comply with general law, and analyses that effect on the basis of a distortion of the facts and several errors in law and assessment.
Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Moreno Reyes/Council

(Case T-552/18)

(2018/C 427/115)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Xavier Antonio Moreno Reyes (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

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

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 that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence. — In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 October 2018 — Vins el Cep v EUIPO — Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien (MIM NATURA)

(Case T-589/18)

(2018/C 427/126)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vins el Cep, SL (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia, Spain) (represented by: J. Vázquez Salleras and G. Ferrer Gonzalvez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rotkäppchen-Mumm Sektkellereien GmbH (Eltville, 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 MIM NATURA — Application for registration No 15 322 761

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2018 in Case R 2270/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the application against the contested decision;

— declare null and void the contested decision;

— impose the costs of the proceedings to the EUIPO.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that there has been no notification to the applicant of the decision to terminate his employment contract in the appropriate notice period, as defined by his contract.
—

order the defendant: additionally to require, in turn, that the supervisory authorities for products from organic production to which the defendant entrusts the tasks associated with the EU supervision of organic production in third countries send to the relevant importer named in Field 11 of the certificate of inspection issued in accordance with Annex V to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1235/20[0]8, (1) in particular the applicant, the decisions of those authorities regarding the annulment, revocation or declaration of invalidity of the certificates of inspection issued to the relevant importer, in particular the applicant, and deal with any related administrative appeals and take a decision thereon; and additionally to urge the supervisory authorities for products from organic production authorised by the defendant in third countries to make available to importers, in particular the applicant, the documents relating to the organic inspection procedure forming the basis of such decisions, in particular the inspection reports and evaluation letters, with, however, redaction of the parts that are subject to data protection in favour of third parties.
Action brought on 9 October 2018 — Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma v EMA

(Case T-611/18)

(2018/C 455/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmaceutical Works Polpharma S.A. (Starogard Gdański, Poland) (represented by: M. Martens, N. Carbonnelle, lawyers and S. Faircliffe, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the EMA’s decision of 30 July 2018 not to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma, a generic version of Tecfidera;

— order the EMA to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

The contested decision refuses to validate the applicant’s marketing authorisation application for Dimethyl Fumarate Polpharma in consideration of the fact that the reference product allegedly benefits from regulatory data protection.

An exception of illegality based on Article 277 TFEU is directed against the decision granting marketing authorisation to the reference medicinal product insofar as it expresses a manifestly erroneous conclusion regarding that product’s difference from Fumaderm for ‘global marketing authorisation’ purposes. Under a single plea in law, the applicant submits that, the exception of illegality being admissible and well-founded, the statement of reasons of the contested decision not to validate the applicant’s application for marketing authorisation is not legally admissible under Article 296 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 October 2018 — Super bock group, SGPS v EUIPO — Agus (Crystal)

(Case T-648/18)

(2019/C 16/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Super bock group, SGPS SA (Leça do Balio, Portugal) (represented by: J. Mioludo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agus sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland)

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 word mark Crystal — Application for registration No 15 016 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 July 2018 in Case R 299/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— refuse EU Registration No 15 016 728 Crystal for all the covered goods;

— order EUIPO and AGUS sp. z o.o. to bear their own costs and pay those of the appellant.

Plea in law
First plea in law, alleging a misapplication and misreading of Articles 7 and 7a of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (the Framework Directive)

In this regard, the applicant submits that the contested decision presents a number of critical findings in relation to the Dutch national regulatory authority’s draft decision (the 2018 WFA Decision), which are qualified as comments but which in fact unequivocally fulfil the criteria for a finding of serious doubts. The applicant further claims that each of these observations in fact concern, by any objective standard, serious doubts requiring the Commission to conduct an in-depth investigation pursuant to Articles 7(4) and 7a(1) of the Framework Directive.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 November 2018 — SLL Service v EUIPO — Elfa International (LUMIN8)

(Case T-680/18)

(2019/C 25/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SLL Service GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: C. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elfa International AB (Västervik, Sweden)

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 LUMIN8 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 276 543

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 August 2018 in Case R 2752/2017-2

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 29 October 2018 — Reaktor Group v EUIPO (REAKTOR)

(Case T-650/18)

(2019/C 16/67)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Reaktor Group Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the word mark REAKTOR as a European Union trade mark — Application for registration No 13 752 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 August 2018 in Case R 2626/2017-2 in so far as the Second Board of Appeal, by the contested decision, dismissed EU trade mark application 13752522 REAKTOR (‘the REAKTOR mark’) for certain goods and services applied for in classes 9, 41 and 42 on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation; and allow the application concerning the REAKTOR mark to be published and registered in its entirety for all the goods and services applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant the costs incurred in respect of the appeal before the General Court of the European Union and the Board of Appeal;

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation No 1049/2001, of Article 15(3) TFEU and of Article 42 of the Charter, on the ground that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations resulting from the public’s right of access to the documents of the institutions and the duty of transparency.
—

annul Decision ADMIN(2017)26 of the Director General of Budget and Administration of the European External Action Service of 19 December 2017 on the determination of the countries in which living conditions can be deemed equivalent to those of the European Union, which do not give rise to the right to an allowance for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — financial year 2018;