ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Cyprian Iwuć v EUIPO — Hangzhou XiangHui (Packaging boxes, Socks (Set of -))

(Case T-492/22)

(2022/C 368/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Cyprian Iwuć (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: T. Kos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hangzhou XiangHui International Trading Co., Ltd. (Hangzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design ‘Packaging boxes, Socks (Set of -)’ — Community design No 8 043 228-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2022 in Case R 1672/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, accordingly, declare the contested design invalid; in the alternative, if the contested design is not deemed to lack novelty as a whole, limit, on the basis of Article 25(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, the registration of the contested design to the cardboard box;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal; order EUIPO to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-467/22)

(2022/C 359/109)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Euphrates Drainage and Irrigation Loan Agreement nr. 80211 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising: — EUR 1 959 745,31, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 1 680 510,04, interest of EUR 116 961,48 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 162 273,79. — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Action brought on 29 June 2022 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-403/22)

(2022/C 380/17)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that even if the audit were to be deemed within the scope of the contract and the burden of proof incumbent, as a matter of principle, on the applicant, the rejection of the secondment costs, during an ex post verification for systematic errors improper to such verification as referring to flat rate financing, was reached in infringement of the principle of good faith not only in applying the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 (1), in force at the time of the audit (article 181 (2)), but also in performing under contract in general: by an unlawful discretion, the auditing entity denied the sufficiency of a performance audit for flat rate financing so as to assess it upon certified and auditable historical data of the beneficiary, and, instead, she privileged types of evidence referring to generating events of the activities covered by flat rate financing. Such inversion in the order of proofs deprived the applicant of the right to interpret its contractual obligations to its benefit in a legal context of vagueness of terms as created by the then applicable Financial Regulation (966/2012) (2) as well as by the contradictory behaviour of the defendant in monitoring the implementation of the GA.
2.

Second plea in law alleging breaches Article 296 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), Article 41 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘The Charter’) and Article 2 and 4 of the Amended Decision on the grounds that the Council has not provided sufficiently specific and concrete reasons to justify the decision to take restrictive measures against the applicant, according to Article 4 of the Decision and Article 3 of the Regulation; it has committed manifest errors in conducting its analysis and failing to establish why the applicant would fall under one of the criteria stipulated in the Amended Decision, without thoroughly examining the facts and providing sufficient reasons to adopt restrictive measures against a person.
—

annul the decision, validly communicated to the applicant on 18 July 2022, rejecting the request for internal review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2049 of 24 November 2021 renewing the approval of the active substance cypermethrin as a candidate for substitution in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011; (1)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — European Food (FITNESS)

(Case T-519/22)

(2022/C 398/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and A.-C. Salger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania)

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 FITNESS — European Union trade mark No 2 470 326

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 894/2020-1

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 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 70 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 September 2022 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO — Mustang (Checked pattern in blue and white with white horses)

(Case T-546/22)

(2022/C 418/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, R. Wessman and S. Ljungblad, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Schwäbisch Hall, 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 pattern mark representing a checked pattern in blue and white with white horses — Application for registration No 18 161 231

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 June 2022 in Case R 1733/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division based on the conclusion in paragraph 39 of the contested decision that ‘[o]verall the signs [of the applicant and the opponent] are similar’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the applicant is entitled to recover the default interest amount of EUR 3 382 129,97, or alternatively interest calculated for such period and at such rate as the Court shall think fit, by an action under the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU, on the basis that the Commission was obliged to pay such interest in order to comply with the judgment of the General Court in Case T-341/17. In this regard, the applicant relies in the alternative on Article 277 TFEU, in the event that the Commission seeks to rely on secondary legislation and such legislation is interpreted in a manner that is inconsistent with the applicant’s Treaty rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 September 2022 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO (ENDURANCE)

(Case T-566/22)

(2022/C 424/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Silkeborg, Denmark) (represented by: T. Kruse Lie, lawyer)

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 mark figurative ENDURANCE — Application for registration No 1 542 490

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2022 in Case R 1779/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it refused registration as an European Union trade mark of the figurative sign ENDURANCE in respect of the goods and services in Classes 9, 25, 28 and 35;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Marico v EUIPO — Regal Impex (SAFFOLA)

(Case T-611/22)

(2022/C 441/37)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marico Ltd (Mumbai, India) (represented by: B. Collett and S. Malynicz, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Regal Impex Ltd (Harrow, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SAFFOLA — European Union trade mark No 12 568 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 July 2022 in Case R 1538/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO decide to intervene, to pay the applicant’s costs and bear their own costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by wrongly concluding that the European Union trade mark proprietor had demonstrated genuine use of the contested mark in respect of ‘edible oils and fats’;
Action brought on 22 August 2022 — Sberbank of Russia v SRB

(Case T-527/22)

(2022/C 441/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision (SRB/EES/2022/19) on assessment of the conditions for resolution in respect of Sberbank Europe AG issued by the Single Resolution Board on 1 March 2022, together with the Valuation Report 1, issued by the Single Resolution Board on 27 February 2022;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging the infringement of essential procedural requirements.

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

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment in the overall evaluation of the conditions related to the resolution scheme and breach of Articles 6, 14 and 18 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014, (1) as well as infringement of the fundamental right to property and of the freedom to conduct a business.

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

Action brought on 17 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoes)

(Case T-647/22)

(2022/C 463/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Waalwijck, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 3 320 555-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2022 in Case R 726/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 October 2022 — moderne Stadt v EUIPO (DEUTZER HAFEN KÖLN)

(Case T-657/22)

(2022/C 472/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: moderne Stadt Gesellschaft zur Förderung des Städtebaues und der Gemeindeentwicklung mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Simon and L. Daams, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEUTZER HAFEN KÖLN’ — Application No 18 401 434

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2022 in Case R 2196/2021-5

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 7(1)(c) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging a failure to state adequate reasons. Contradictory reasoning. — The grounds of the decision rejecting the nomination of Ms Carmela Giuffrida as an EPPO European Delegated Prosecutor located in Bari appear inadequate inasmuch as the applicant had performed the required function at national level for more than eight years, from 30 September 1999 to 8 January 2008. During that whole period she had performed her role dealing specifically with offences affecting the European Union’s financial interests. — From the cover letter the applicant sent to supplement and clarify her CV it is apparent that during the abovementioned period she had formed part of the working group set up at the public prosecutor’s office that dealt with the offences referred to in Article 640a, that is to say, with fraud involving EU finds and, consequently, with all offences related thereto.
Action brought on 24 November 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council

(Case T-731/22)

(2023/C 24/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn; and thereby

— declare Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 to be unlawful and

— disapply those provisions by way of a plea of illegality or, at the very least, declare that those provisions were illegally applied to Mr Kozitsyn; in any event,

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

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

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

Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the right of defence/right to judge, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. As regards the breach of the right of defence/right to judge, the only reason for refusal by the defendant of giving any consideration to the option of a transfer is based on the fact that the applicant exercised its right of appeal. The mere fact that the applicant lodged an appeal cannot be presented as a valid justification for the administration to deny a fair implementation of the judgment in case T-610/18 ZR v EUIPO; As regards the breach of the principles of good administration, duty of care and duty to state reasons: — first, the defendant did not take into consideration all the factors capable of affecting its decision since legally tenable options were rejected and the alternative option was ignored; — second, the exchanges with the defendant based on one option envisaged by the administration can hardly qualify as a comprehensive dialogue aiming at finding a just solution.
Action brought on 12 November 2022 — TA v Commission

(Case T-702/22)

(2023/C 24/78)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: TA (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4, on the grounds of failure to state reasons, or in so far as those articles apply to beneficiaries on account of the fact that they have employees who are non-resident in the outermost region, or that those beneficiaries obtain earnings from transactions outside the outermost region;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons in the contested decision.

Second plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but had relationships with the exterior, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in benefits conferred on undertakings that were established regionally, but maintained employment relationships with employees, who were not in the outermost region on a permanent basis, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Fourth plea in law, alleging error of assessment of fact and of law in the contested decision, in that benefits conferred on undertakings that do not exceed the quantitative limits laid down in the Regional State Aid Guidelines 2007 and in the General Block Exemption Regulation 2014, were found not to be compatible with the internal market within the meaning of Article 107(3) TFEU.

Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of general principles of EU law: legal certainty, legitimate expectations and legality.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Swan Lake v Commission

(Case T-698/22)

(2023/C 24/75)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Swan Lake Serviços e Consultores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

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

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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