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

Action brought on 28 October 2021 — Alauzun and Others v Commission

(Case T-695/21)

(2022/C 2/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Virginie Alauzun (Saint Cannat, France) and 774 other applicants (represented by: F. Di Vizio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare that the European Commission (EC) unlawfully failed to include carcinogenicity and genotoxicity testing in the preclinical phase for the mRNA-technology vaccines;

— order the European Commission to include carcinogenicity and genotoxicity testing in the preclinical phase for mRNA-technology vaccines not yet authorised under the EMA procedure;

— order the European Commission to include carcinogenicity and genotoxicity testing in the pharmacovigilance phase for mRNA-technology vaccines already authorised under the EMA procedure;

— request the Commission to disclose the following information: — the clear legislative basis as to why the testing at issue was not included in the preclinical and pharmacovigilance testing phases; — the regulation setting out the mandatory checks required for the authorisation of mRNA-technology vaccines.

— order the European Commission to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants allege an infringement of EU law and a failure to act on the part of the Commission. The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission did not comply with its obligation arising under Article 168 TFEU to guarantee a ‘high level of human health protection’ by granting a conditional marketing authorisation to mRNA-technology vaccines in the absence of carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2021 — Rooken and Others v Parliament

(Case T-723/21)

(2022/C 11/50)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Robert Jan Rooken (Muiderberg, Netherlands) and eight other applicants (represented by: P. de Bandt, M. Gherghinaru and L. Panepinto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— order the annulment of the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 27 October 2021 on exceptional health and safety rules governing access to the European Parliament buildings at its three places of work;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those relating to the application for suspension of operation of the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law that are identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-710/21, Roos and Others v Parliament.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Haidukevich v Council

(Case T-580/21)

(2022/C 11/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aleh Haidukevich (Semkino, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus, (2) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

(1) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Action brought on 22 November 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-743/21)

(2022/C 37/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA. 57369 (2020/N) — Portugal — Rescue aid to TAP SGPS; (1) and

— order the defendant 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 defendant erred in law and manifestly erred in its assessment by claiming that the State aid falls within the material scope of the R&R Guidelines, without correctly determining whether the applicant’s difficulties are too serious to be dealt with by itself, and are intrinsic or the result of an arbitrary allocation of costs within the group to which it belongs.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. It is argued that the defendant’s review of the satisfaction of the compatibility condition that aid should contribute to an objective of common interest and its assessment of the rescue aid’s appropriateness and proportionality and of its negative effects are flawed by errors in law and manifest errors of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of non-discrimination and free provision of services (applied to air transport through Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (2)) and also the principle of free establishment.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant 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 contested decision violates the Commission’s duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.

(1) OJ 2021 C 345, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 December 2021 — Activa — Grillküche v EUIPO — Targa (Grilling apparatus)

(Case T-757/21)

(2022/C 37/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Activa — Grillküche GmbH (Selb, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and M. Würth, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Targa GmbH (Soest, Germany)

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: European Union design No 3 056 449-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2021 in Case R 1651/2020-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and the decision No. ICD 104479 of the Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 12 June 2020 in its entirety;

— declare the design at issue invalid; and

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 63(1), first sentence, in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Bora Creations v EUIPO (essence)

(Case T-738/21)

(2022/C 37/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark essence — Application for registration No 18 269 704

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2021 in Case R 693/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and register the EU trade mark applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 December 2021 — Gustopharma Consumer Health v EUIPO — Helixor Heilmittel (HELIXORIGINAL)

(Case T-797/21)

(2022/C 73/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Gustopharma Consumer Health, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Wachinger and R. Drozdz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Helixor Heilmittel GmbH (Rosenfeld, 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 word mark HELIXORIGINAL — Application for registration No 17 234 824

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2021 in Case R 1644/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 December 2021 — Wenz Kunststoff v EUIPO — Mouldpro (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-794/21)

(2022/C 73/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark MOULDPRO — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2021 in Case R 646/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the application of Mouldpro ApS of 30 January 2018 for cancellation of EU trade mark No 10 022 317;

in the alternative:

— reject the application for cancellation in so far as it covers anything other than hose couplings of plastic (included in Class 17);

in the alternative:

— refer the case back to EUIPO for a further hearing and decision;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 December 2021 — Grupo Eig Multimedia v EUIPO — Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI (FORO16)

(Case T-796/21)

(2022/C 84/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo Eig Multimedia, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globalización de Valores CFC & GCI, SL (Mairena del Aljarafe, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark FORO16 — Application for registration No 18 036 099

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 October 2021 in Case R 1785/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and uphold the applicant’s claims, revoking the initial agreement and in its place, issuing a new decision refusing registration of the trade mark at issue;

— order the defendant 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.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular breach of the right to be heard and breach of the obligation to give reasons.
Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Hasco TM v EUIPO — Esi (NATURCAPS)

(Case T-12/22)

(2022/C 109/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasco TM sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Wrocław, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

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 NATURCAPS — European Union trade mark No 16 289 795

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2021 in Case R 617/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— accept the application and declare it well founded;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of articles 64(2), 47(2), and 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with article 2(1) of Nice Agreement concerning the international classification of goods and services for the purposes of the registration of Marks, article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001, article 2(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and article 24 of Treaty of Accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (2003);
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 January 2022 — Topcart v EUIPO — Carl International (TC CARL)

(Case T-8/22)

(2022/C 84/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Topcart GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Hoffmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carl International (Limonest, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU trade mark TC CARL — Application No 15 519 283

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2021 in Case R 2561/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

(Case T-52/22)

(2022/C 128/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne (Châlons-en-Champagne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ambrosetti Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union figurative mark TEHA — Application No 17 091 091

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2021 in Case R 837/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Hungary v Commission

(Case T-57/22)

(2022/C 119/80)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/2014 of 8 November 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it relates to Hungary and excludes from European Union financing the financial assistance established for the financial year 2018-2019 in relation to the deficiencies in the functioning of the key controls ‘checks to establish the access to the aid claimed’ and ‘correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties’;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hungarian Government maintains that Hungary has not infringed the provisions relating to checks to establish the access to the aid claimed and that the value of the marketed production of each producer organisation was not incorrectly calculated. The practice followed by Hungary is in accordance with Articles 42 and 50(7) of Regulation 543/2011. (2) Similarly, there are no deficiencies in relation to the checks to establish the eligibility of operational programmes and the Hungarian authorities acted in accordance with Article 104(2) of Regulation 543/2011.

Hungary has implemented adequate corrective measures in relation to the findings concerning the second deficiency in the functioning of the key control (‘correct calculation of the aid including administrative reductions and penalties’) and, for that reason, the application of the financial correction is not justified in respect of the expenditure relating to the financial years 2018 and 2019.

(1) OJ 2021 L 413, p. 10.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).
Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission

(Case T-77/22)

(2022/C 138/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Asesores Comunitarios SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision No C(2021) 8946 final of 3 December 2021 refusing the disclosure of the recovery and resilience plan of Spain; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(1)(a), forth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) by undermining the public interest as regard the financial and economic policy. It is furthermore alleged that the contested decision has not accurately stated the facts related to a hypothetical threat to the economic stability of the Kingdom of Spain because of the disclosure of its Recovery and Resilience Plan to the applicant.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would infringe the privacy and the integrity of individuals mentioned in these documents.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would seriously undermine the ongoing decision-making process.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that no overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents has been established prevailing over the need to protect the ongoing decision-making process.

(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. 43-48).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 January 2022 — Labaš v EUIPO (FRESH)

(Case T-58/22)

(2022/C 138/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Miroslav Labaš (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Vasiľ, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FRESH — Application for registration No 18 311 155

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2021 in Case R 610/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— or alternatively, annul part of the contested decision with regards to the Classes 35 and 39 specified in the contested application;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Prigozhin v Council

(Case T-75/22)

(2022/C 148/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: M. Cessieux, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin admissible and

in so far as they concern the applicant

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2197 of 13 December 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2195 of 13 December 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses in so far as those two decisions name him as the financier of the Wagner Group;

— declare that in any event the name of Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin should be immediately withdrawn from the contested measures;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons. The applicant submits that the Council failed to comply with the duty to state reasons for the contested measures by not adducing any specific evidence justifying the reference to the applicant’s name in the body of the contested decisions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging misuse of powers. The applicant submits, in that regard, that in the absence of evidence to support his description as ‘financier of the Wagner Group’, the Council could not name him indirectly in the statement of reasons for the listing of the Wagner Group and thus distort the objective initially pursued by the measure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment. The applicant maintains that he is not the financier of the Wagner Group and that there is no connection between him and that entity.