ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/64

Action brought on 29 October 2015 — Azur Space Solar Power v OHIM (Representation of a black line)

(Case T-614/15)

(2016/C 038/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Azur Space Solar Power GmbH (Heilbronn, Germany) (represented by: J. Nicodemus, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a black line) — Application for registration No 1 201 652

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 September 2015 in Case R 3233/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/79

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament

(Case T-666/15)

(2016/C 048/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8672 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/84

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl)

(Case T-689/15)

(2016/C 048/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 899

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 September 2015 in Case R 2491/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 899 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

— order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/53

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Psara v Parliament

(Case T-639/15)

(2016/C 048/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Maria Psara (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8602 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/72

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Hunter v Parliament

(Case T-659/15)

(2016/C 048/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mark Lee Hunter (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8684 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

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 a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/30

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Souruh v Council

(Case T-707/15)

(2016/C 059/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/43

Action brought on 18 December 2015 — Aurubis and Others v Commission

(Case T-738/15)

(2016/C 059/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Aurubis AG (Hamburg, Germany), Aurubis Stolberg GmbH & Co. KG (Stolberg, Germany), Covestro Deutschland AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Dow Olefinverbund GmbH (Schkopau, Germany), Rheinkalk GmbH (Wülfrath, Germany), Siltronic AG (Munich, Germany), Vestolit GmbH (Marl, Germany) and Wacker Chemie AG (Munich) (represented by: C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 3(1) of the contested decision — in so far as the Commission finds that the reductions in the surcharge for the funding of support for electricity from renewable sources (EEG-surcharge) in the years 2013 and 2014 for energy-intensive users (Besondere Ausgleichsregelung, ‘the BesAR’) constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, or — in the alternative, in so far as the Commission finds that the BesAR constitutes unlawful State aid established in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU.

— annul Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the contested decision in so far as the Commission orders the recovery of the aid, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present action, the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 (notified under document C(2014) 8786 final) on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (1).

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

1. First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU The applicants claim that the BesAR is not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, not least because of the lack of a transfer of State resources. In addition, it gives energy-intensive users no selective economic advantage.

2. Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108 TFEU The applicants claim that, by ordering (partial) recovery, the Commission infringed Article 108 TFEU because the EEG-Act 2012 should have been classified, if at all, only as existing aid and not as new, unlawfully established aid.

3. Third plea in law: Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations In that regard, it is claimed that the recovery of the aid allegedly granted unlawfully infringes the applicants’ legitimate expectations as to the lawfulness of the national legislation, which were established in particular by the Commission decision on the EEG-Act 2000.

4. Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU in conjunction with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure Within the context of the fourth plea in law, the applicants complain that the Commission did not propose any appropriate measures to the Federal Republic of Germany before the initiation of the formal investigation procedure.

(1) OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/42

Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF Toruń v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case T-758/15)

(2016/C 068/53)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision No SME(2015)4950 of 3 November 2015 issued by the European Chemicals Agency, and VAT invoice No 10054011 of 3 November 2015, relating to the charging of an administrative fee for the incorrect indication of the undertaking’s size when making a notification to the REACH register;

— 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, relating to a lack of binding force of the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC) and to the need to apply national provisions in this regard;

2. Second plea, relating to infringement of the provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008, (1) given the fact that the agency is not entitled to impose financial penalties on entities making a notification to the REACH register;

3. Third plea, relating to infringement of the principle of proportionality through the charging of an administrative fee whose amount is excessively high in relation to the work required to determine the correct value for the undertaking;

4. Fourth plea, relating to misuse of powers through the charging of a fee on the basis of Decision 14/2015 of the Management Board of the European Chemicals Agency when that decision does not have binding force;

5. Fifth plea, relating to infringement of the principle of equality by setting the amount of administrative fees on the basis of the size of the entity which is to be charged the fee, when there are no arguments at all supporting the correctness of such a solution.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 of 16 April 2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals Agency pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2008 L 107, p. 6).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/35

Action brought on 4 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD)

(Case T-715/15)

(2016/C 059/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY GEEK SQUAD’ — Community trade mark application No 6 064 001

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Joined Cases R 517/2015-2 and R 437/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

— annul the opposition division’s decision dated 22 December 2014 in Opposition No B 1354630 to the extent that it upheld the opposition;

— accept CTM Application No 6 064 001 for registration;

— order OHIM to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/23

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)

(Case T-744/15)

(2016/C 078/34)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Puro Italian Style SpA (Puro SpA) (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘smartline’ — Application for registration No 12 574 802

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2015 in Case R 2258/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/33

Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft v Commission

(Case T-724/15)

(2016/C 068/42)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Verband der Bayerischen Privaten Milchwirtschaft e. V. (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Thies, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul the contested decision in so far as it — found in Article 1 that, in Germany, with regard to the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria, State aid had been granted in favour of the undertakings in the dairy industry concerned, in infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU, and that that aid had been incompatible with the internal market since 1 January 2007; — ordered, in Articles 2 to 4, the recovery of that aid together with interest from the recipients;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action the applicant requests the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 on State aid No SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany for milk quality tests within the framework of the Milk and Fat Law.

In support of the action the applicant puts forward six pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to the pleas in law put forward in Case T-722/15 Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission.
1.

First plea in law: infringement of the Treaties — The applicant claims that the refusal of the use of the requested rooms and the ban imposed on the Russian participants of the press conference from entering the European Parliament infringes the Treaties or the relevant provisions for their enforcement. — In accordance with the rules of the President of the European Parliament’s office on political group meetings of 4 July 2005, the applicant is entitled to have the requested rooms made available. No exceptional grounds for the refusal were present, since the rooms had not been reserved for the time at issue and the planned press conference did not pose a risk to security and would not have adversely affected the Parliament’s functioning. The applicant was thereby hindered from providing information on his parliamentary work. — The ban from entering the premises imposed on the Russian guests infringes the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin and nationality (Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/20

Action brought on 17 December 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Sky (SKYLITE)

(Case T-736/15)

(2016/C 090/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘SKYLITE’ — Application for registration No 11 595 311

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2015 in Case R 2771/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/55

Action brought on 18 January 2016 — Advanced Drainage Systems v OHIM (THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS)

(Case T-19/16)

(2016/C 098/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: C. Sleep, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘THE MOST ADVANCED NAME IN WATER MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS’ — Application for registration No 13 405 188

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1501/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the decision and allow the application to proceed to registration.

— in the alternative, allow this appeal and overturn the Decision and remit the application back to the Examination division;

— grant an award of costs.

Plea in law