ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging that Council Decision 2019/25 is void insofar as it concerns the applicant since the applicant could have not been qualified as a terrorist organisation as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001. (2) The defendant would have failed to establish that the applicant is a structured group acting in concert to commit terrorist attacks. Moreover, the bulk of the acts mentioned in the statement of reasons cannot be attributed to the applicant, are not included in the limitative list of acts in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP and/or cannot seriously damage a country. Finally, the aim of the applicant was not a ‘terrorist aim’ as defined in Article 1(3) of Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. In particular, this aim must be considered in light of the armed conflict for self-determination.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 March 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923)

(Case T-147/19)

(2019/C 148/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Flovax Sàrl (Doncols, Luxembourg) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dagniaux (Roubaix, France), Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Compagnie Gervais Danone

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative colour mark GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923 ‘Text and paint: Pantone blue no 302; background Pantone no 1205c (cream)’ — EU trade mark No 896 480

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 in Case R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 18 May 2018 in Cases R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1;

— declare admissible appeal R 2211/2016-1 lodged by FLOVAX before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office;

— annul Cancellation Division Decision No 10417 C taken on the basis of Article 55(1) of the EU trade mark regulation, following the application for revocation registered on 22 October 2015 by Compagnie Gervais Danone, rejecting in its entirety that application for revocation;

— order Compagnie Gervais Danone to pay to the proprietor of the mark the cancellation fee and representation costs, set out on the basis of the maximum rate indicated in Article 94 of the EU trade mark regulation.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 70 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Breach of the principle of audi alteram partem;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO (colour mark purple)

(Case T-187/19)

(2019/C 172/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and R. Jacob, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union colour mark purple (PANTONE: 2587C) — Application for registration No 14 596 951

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2019 in Case R 1870/2017-1

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by finding that the sign lacked inherent distinctive character so that it could not validly be registered as a trade mark;
Action brought on 29 March 2019 — Zubedi v Council

(Case T-186/19)

(2019/C 187/88)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Khaled Zubedi (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: M. Lester, QC and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (2), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

— order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error in its assessment by including the applicant in the European Union’s restrictive measures concerning Syria.

The applicant has been included by the Council implementing decision (CFSP) 2019/87 and Council implementing regulation (EU) 2019/85 on the basis that he is one of a group of successful businessman in Syria, who are all said by the defendant, to be making large profits from and supporting the regime of President Assad by forming partnerships with State backed companies to develop land expropriated from people displaced by the conflict in Syria. This would be completely untrue in respect of the applicant, the criteria for inclusion would have not been fulfilled and the defendant’s case would have been based on an insufficiently solid basis.

(1) Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 13).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 181, 21.1.2019, p. 4).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Apple v EUIPO (Styluses)

(Case T-212/19)

(2019/C 182/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design: Application for registration No 3012707 -0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 January 2019 in Case R 2533/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 in conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Action brought on 3 May 2019 — Azarov v Council

(Case T-286/19)

(2019/C 213/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Mykola Yanovych Azarov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: G. Lansky and A. Egger, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as they relate to the applicant;

— order specific measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, in particular: a) invite the Council to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection and on the examination of the validity of the allegations; and b) invite the EEAS to submit documents on the examination of the observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the challenged legal acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

First, the applicant complains of infringement of the defendant’s formal examination obligations, in particular with regard to independent examination, examination of jurisdiction and observance of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection. In this regard, he claims that the defendant has not complied with its obligations set out in the judgment of the General Court of 19 December 2018, Azarov v Council (C-530/17 P, EU:C:2018:1031).

Further, the applicant relies on an infringement of the defendant’s duty to state reasons, as it failed to examine the validity of the allegations made against the applicant.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s decision breached essential procedural requirements and violated the following: — Article 24(2) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, (1) and point 72 of the Code of Best Practices for the Conduct of State Aid Control Procedures; (2) — the applicant’s right to be heard; — the duty to state reasons, protected under Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; — the applicant’s right to appeal, protected under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2019 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — Golden Frog (CHAMELEON)

(Case T-312/19)

(2019/C 230/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Golden Frog GmbH (Meggen, Suisse)

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 CHAMELEON — Application for registration No 12 567 269

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2019 in Case R 1551/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

— order Golden Frog GmbH to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 76(3) of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members. According to the applicant, the abovementioned Article 27 of the Statute for Members has the effect of guaranteeing the integrity of the provisions of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members in relation to the pension fund, thereby preventing any change to their structure.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 June 2019 — Google and Alphabet v Commission

(Case T-334/19)

(2019/C 255/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Google LLC (Mountain View, California, United States), Alphabet, Inc. (Mountain View) (represented by: C. Jeffs, lawyer, J. Staples, Solicitor, D. Beard QC and J. Williams, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— to annul (in whole or in part) the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 in Case COMP/AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense);

— consequently, or in the alternative, to annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in exercise of the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction; and

— in any event, order the Commission to bear the applicants’ costs and expenses in connection with these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 20 March 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (AT.40411 — Google Search (AdSense)). The applicants seek annulment of each of the three findings of infringement, the finding that they amounted to a single continuous infringement and the imposition of a fine.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in its assessments of market definition and thus dominance. In particular, the contested decision errs in finding that: — search ads and non-search ads do not compete; — directly sold ads and intermediated ads do not compete.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s so-called exclusivity clause (‘Site-Exclusivity Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision: — mischaracterizes the Site-Exclusivity Clause as an exclusive supply obligation; — errs in finding that the decision was not required to analyze if the Site-Exclusivity Clause was likely to have anti-competitive effects; — fails to demonstrate that the Site-Exclusivity clause, however characterized, was likely to restrict competition.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s premium placement and minimum Google ads clause (‘Placement Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision: — mischaracterizes the Placement Clause; — fails to demonstrate that the Placement Clause was likely to restrict competition.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in finding that Google’s authorising equivalent ads clause (‘Modification Clause’) was abusive. The contested decision: — does not demonstrate that the Modification Clause was likely to restrict competition; — alternatively wrongly ignores that the Modification Clause was objectively justified because it protected website users, publishers, advertisers and Google and/or that any foreclosure effect was outweighed by the advantages of the clause.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the European Parliament unlawfully applied national legislation which is contrary to the fundamental principles of the EU legal system and in particular the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and alleging that it failed to observe the principle of the primacy of EU law. — The applicant claims in this regard that the reform of the life annuities of former Italian members of parliament re-determined the amount of those annuities ex post in a way that was completely unforeseeable, was not gradual and did not include adequate safeguard clauses, and therefore seriously infringes the principle of legitimate expectations, which is one of the fundamental principles of EU law. — For that reason, that reform could not be implemented by the European Parliament: indeed, according to the general principles governing relations between legal systems, the transposing of rules from one legal system to another as a result of a reference (whether a dynamic reference or a cross-reference) comes up against a specific countercheck: the reference may not operate where the rule from the legal system of origin is contrary to the fundamental principles of the receiving legal system. Furthermore, because of the primacy of EU law — which is a key principle of the European Union — if national legislation is contrary to a provision of EU legislation it must be disapplied in order to ensure the uniform protection of citizens under EU law throughout the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 June 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO — Forest (FAKE DUCK)

(Case T-371/19)

(2019/C 263/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: A. Visentin, M. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forest Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 FAKE DUCK — Application for registration No 15 912 496

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2019 in Case R 1117/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action to be well founded for the reasons set out in the application and, accordingly;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to award EU trade mark No 015912496 also for Classes 18 and 25;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation EU 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 8 April 2019 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and the EACEA

(Case T-236/19)

(2019/C 270/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize (Houffalize, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kettels, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul or vary the contested measure;

— hold that the applicant Committee is entitled to have its ‘legal entity’ form validated and, consequently, to obtain the financing at issue.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action against Commission Decision C(2019) 572 final of 4 February 2019 – dismissing the administrative action brought by the applicant against the decision of the EACEA of 25 June 2018, by which the EACEA did not award a grant to the applicant following the application submitted by the latter in the context of the call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) – the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging:

— infringement of Article 131.2 of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002;

— infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty;

— infringement of the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of arbitrariness;

— manifest error of assessment;

— and failure to state adequate, sufficient and relevant reasons in that the contested decision states that the legitimate expectations and the legal certainty of the applicant Committee have not been breached.

According to the applicant, that decision fails to respond to the specific issue raised in that regard by the applicant. The answers given either have no connection with the line of argument put forward by the applicant Committee in its application for a re-examination or are manifestly insufficient to justify rejecting the argument arising from the infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation and legal certainty, or, in any event, are contrary to the scope of that principle.

The applicant maintains that it can rely on a legitimate expectation of being recognised as an entity without a legal personality that is eligible for grants, which it has however been denied. The applicant derives that legitimate expectation from the decisions awarding grants that were notified to it at a time when it had the same legal status, namely that of a de facto association, and from the fact that its factual and legal situation was identical and the rules governing the eligibility of entities that do not have a legal personality have not been changed since that time. The applicant submits that there was therefore no reason to renege on that legitimate expectation and adopt a different approach from that which was adopted in the past.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in relation to Article 101(1) TFEU in so far as it found that the commitments proposed by NBCUniversal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros and Sky do not affect the cultural diversity and more generally the financing and exploitation of films in the European Economic Area.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)

(Case T-401/19)

(2019/C 288/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 673

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1498/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law