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

Action brought on 19 July 2019 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building blocks from a toy building set)

(Case T-515/19)

(2019/C 305/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Registered Community design No 1664 368-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 in Case R 31/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— maintain the decision of the Design Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 30 October 2017 rejecting the application for declaration of invalidity of the registered Community design No 1664 368-0006;

— order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 July 2019 — Sánchez Cano v EUIPO — Grupo Osborne (EL TORO BALLS Fini)

(Case T-527/19)

(2019/C 312/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sánchez Cano, SA (Molina del Segura, Spain) (represented by C. Giner Mas and M. González Aleixandre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark EL TORO BALLS Fini — Application for registration No 15 648 595

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 March 2019 in Case R 2690/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application, as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; or, in the event that the other party in the contested decision appears as an intervener, order that the defendant and the other party in the contested decision be held jointly and severally liable to pay to the applicant the costs relating to and occasioned by the present application, as well as the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law

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

Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)

(Case T-556/19)

(2019/C 328/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

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 GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1284/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 August 2019 — Global Steel Wire and Others v Commission

(Case T-545/19)

(2019/C 319/31)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Global Steel Wire, SA (Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain), Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain), Global Special Steel Products, SA (Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz, J. Blanco Carol and B. Martos Stevenson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 24 May 2019; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action, which dates back to a request for inability to pay submitted in February 2000 in the context of proceedings in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel, is brought against the European Commission’s decision rejecting the request of 20 December 2018 to defer payment in the light of the applicants’ financial situation.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the contested decision was adopted without the applicants being given the opportunity to set out their point of view in that regard.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to state reasons for the rejection of the request submitted by the applicants.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in fact and in law when assessing the applicants’ financial situation and their ability to pay the fine.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission adopted the contested decision in breach of the general principle of collegiality, thereby vitiating that decision by a lack of competence.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of fundamental and general principles of EU law, including, inter alia, protection of legitimate expectations, the principles of sound administration, good faith, legal certainty and observance of the principle of proportionality. In that regard, the applicant considers that the appointing authority has clearly not correctly applied and interpreted the abovementioned provisions and principles by not taking the necessary measures to give effect to the judgment given in proceedings for annulment by the General Court of the European Union on 14 December 2018, FV v Council (T-750/16, EU:T:2018:972). She also considers that the appointing authority infringed the principle which requires the administration to adopt a decision which is not disproportionate, that is to say, which is necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued, which entails that the content and form of the decision is in line with those objectives. Lastly, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of her legitimate expectation that the appointing authority gives correct and expeditious effect to the abovementioned judgment, T-750/16, not only through the correct application of Article 266 TFEU but also without retroactive effect.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2019 – Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO – Mystic Products Import & Export and Koopman International (Fluid distribution equipment)

(Case T-574/19)

(2019/C 337/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) (represented by: A. Odle, lawyer and J. St Ville, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain), Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1431 829-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2019 in Case R 1002/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: (i) allow the applicant’s appeal; (ii) dismiss in its entirety the invalidity applicants’ applications ICD 10292 and ICD 10689 to declare the RCD an issue invalid; (iii) order the invalidity applicants to pay the applicant’s costs in front of the Board of Appeal and the Invalidity Division; (iv) alternatively remit to the Invalidity Division to address Article 4(1) CDR.

— order the payment the appellant’s fees and costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality, and that it infringes the rights of the defence — The Commission, erroneously and in breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, found in the contested decision that the equipment loan granted to HKL-Bussiliikenne constituted aid, by applying a stricter interpretation to the concept of the existing aid scheme than Finland had previously been aware of. — The order for recovery made by the Commission in the contested decision manifestly exceeds what is necessary to remove the unfair competitive advantage caused by the alleged State aid. The price ultimately paid for the business of HelB was a market price. The purchaser of the business did not derive an unfair advantage, as the aid was taken into account in the purchase price. The extension of the recovery order to include the purchaser of the business is thus contrary to the principle of proportionality.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality, fairness and contractual good faith, as enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU, because, by immediately issuing a recovery order without giving the applicant the chance to give an adequate explanation of the contested Audit findings by means of an extensively elaborated management response and the proposed meetings, the defendant did not act in good faith and exceeded the limits of what is appropriate and necessary, whereas, an adequate amicable settlement could have been sufficient in first instance, as prescribed by the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement. It was thus not necessary nor essential for the defendant’s statement of the reasons for its decision to neglect the applicant’s request to pursue an amicable settlement in the first place. This is fully contrary to the principle of proportionality which implies that, if there are several appropriate measures, as is the case in the current matter, those that are the least invasive and burdensome must be chosen (quod non).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 September 2019 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller)

(Case T-626/19)

(2019/C 372/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Registration of the European Union word mark ‘SOS Loch- und Rissfüller’ — Application for registration No 17 870 692

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Case R 278/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the Decision of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in so far as it rejects the application for registration of the mark ‘SOS Loch- und Rissfüller’ in respect of the following goods: — ‘Class 1 — Chemicals used in industry; Masonry preservatives and dampers, roof tiles, cements and concrete, except paints and oils; Synthetic resins, synthetic resins and unprocessed plastics; Solvents (chemical -); Fillers for use in coating paints (not included in other classes) — Class 2 — Raw natural resins — Class 19 — Mortar for building construction; Quartz; Coatings (building materials); Cleaning preparations; Compositions for building devices; Filaments being building materials; Fabrics for building purposes, not of metal or predominantly non-metallic materials, in particular stabilising fabric’;

— order EUIPO to allow the application for registration to be published, as lodged;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 160 and 167 of, and points 16.3, 18.2 and 21.1 of Annex I to, Regulation 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, misuse of powers, manifest error of assessment and infringement of the general principles of competition, transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination in public contracts. Under the first plea, the applicant submits that some of the award criteria on the basis of which the successful tenderer was designated fall under the qualitative selection, not the award, even though the selection criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of candidates or tenderers and the award criteria are strictly linked to the assessment of tenders and must make it possible to identify the most economically advantageous tender.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 September 2019 – UPL Europe and Aceto Agricultural Chemical v Commission

(Case T-612/19)

(2019/C 399/90)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington Cheshire, United Kingdom) and Aceto Agricultural Chemical Corp. Ltd (Port Washington, United States) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019; (1)

— 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.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted further to manifest errors of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation results from a procedure during which the applicants’ rights of defence have not been respected.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the precautionary principle.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance chlorpropham, 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 (OJ 2019 L 160, p. 11).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2019 – Linde Material Handling v EUIPO – Verti Aseguradora (VertiLight)

(Case T-644/19)

(2019/C 383/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Linde Material Handling GmbH (Aschaffenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verti Aseguradora, Compañía de seguros y reaseguros, SA (Madrid, Spain)

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 VertiLight – Application for registration No 16 161 788

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2019 in Case R 1849/2018-5

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 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the obligation to state reasons, under Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Chemours Netherlands v ECHA

(Case T-636/19)

(2019/C 399/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Chemours Netherlands BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested decision in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list of substances of very high concern as a substance of equivalent concern for human health and/or in so far as it includes 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propionic acid, its salts and its acyl halides (covering any of their individual isomers and combinations thereof) in the candidate list as a substance of equivalent concern for the environment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings; and

— take such other or further measure as justice may require.

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 Agency breached Article 57(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) and exceeded its competence under this provision, and manifestly erred in its assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality since it is not necessary or appropriate.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of 16 May 2000 and Article 6 of the recruitment notice are unlawful, in that they disregard the principles of sound administration, legal certainty and non-discrimination and breach Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. In any event, the recruitment procedure following in this case is unlawful on the same grounds. — First, the Appointing Authority was not provided with a full opinion of the committee as regards the merits of the candidates when it was called upon to take its appointment decision and, accordingly, to make its choice. That means, next, that those merits were not evaluated, by either the committee or the Appointing Authority, objectively and transparently, on the basis of pre-established criteria a fortiori communicated to it. — Second, the recommendation accompanying the interview report is not otherwise specified. The committee merely draws up an interview report but the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for the committee to carry out a comparison of merits at the time of the interviews. Nor does the decision of 16 May 2000 stipulate that the Bureau, as the Appointing Authority, must lay down criteria for that purpose, particularly as, it appears, it does not have access to the criteria established by the committee, should any exist, which they do not. — Third, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not stipulate that all candidates’ files are to be available to the Appointing Authority. Although the defendant asserts that the members of the Bureau had available to them the personal files of the candidates, it does not claim that those members actually consulted those files and, in particular, that of the applicant. — Fourth, the decision of 16 May 2000 does not provide for communication to the candidates of the criteria laid down by the committee and the Appointing Authority for the purposes of their work of examination and comparison of the merits.
Action brought on 31 July 2019 — Sarantos and Others v Parliament and Commission

(Case T-547/19)

(2019/C 399/88)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Archimandrite Sarantis Sarantos (Marousi, Greece) and six other applicants (represented by: C. Papasotiriou, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the regulation of the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Union of 20 June 2019 (2018/0104/COD, Lex 1939/PE-CONS 70/19) on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement; (1)

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects human dignity, private life and personal freedom, as well as the right to protection of personal data and to express consent for any processing of such data.

2. Second plea, alleging that the contested regulation adversely affects the applicants’ religious conscience, in breach, inter alia, of Article 10(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

3. Third plea, alleging that, by making electronic identity mandatory without citizens’ prior consent, the contested regulation infringes the applicants’ right to object on the particular aforementioned grounds of religious conscience, in breach of Article 10(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

4. Fourth plea, alleging that, by adversely affecting the applicants’ religious conscience, the contested regulation at the same time also adversely affects their human dignity since religious conscience is a fundamental expression thereof, in breach of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2019/1157 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and of residence documents issued to Union citizens and their family members exercising their right of free movement (OJ 2019 L 188, p. 67).