ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/35

Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-591/17)

(2017/C 369/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

— for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement, comprising: — 404 425,58 euro, the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made; — all applicable taxes, duties, fees and professional fees accruing from the due date until the date payment is made, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising: — all principal and interest for each instalment; — contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Water Supply Deir Ez Zor Region Loan Agreement.
1.

By the first plea in law, it is claimed that the contested correction has been imposed unlawfully, on the basis of error as to the facts, with a defective and insufficient statement of reasons and in breach of the principles of good administration and equity, as shown in detail, in the first part of that plea, with respect to alleged weaknesses of certain elements in the verification of SMR 1 and particular elements in the verification of minimum requirements in the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, and, in the second part of that plea, with respect to a claimed weakness in risk analysis.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation and Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of good administration by rejecting the adjustments for level of trade, credit terms, packing cost and differences in raw materials and productivity and by imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant. — According to the applicant, all of its sales were made to end-users whereas the analogue country producer sold both to end-users and to traders. The applicant puts forward that it submitted abundant evidence showing that there was a consistent difference in pricing and that despite this, the Commission rejected the requested adjustment for the differences in level of trade. — The applicant argues that the Commission further rejected to revise the calculation of the adjustment for packing costs, even though the applicant submitted evidence that the value of the adjustment was erroneous as a result of the use of a wrong allocation key. According to the applicant, the Commission thus violated its obligations by allocating the total packing cost over the total turnover rather than over the turnover of the products produced by the analogue country producer itself. — The applicant further submits that the Commission also rejected to make an adjustment for credit costs to the bulk of sales by the analogue country producer. According to the applicant, the applicant demonstrated that the evidence on record contradicted the Commission’s position that had initially led it to not make such adjustment, and rather than drawing the right conclusions about the need to make adjustments for credit terms, the Commission made an adjustment for a single specific customer in violation of its obligations. — Finally, so the applicant states, the Commission recognized that there were differences between the raw materials used and the productivity of the analogue country producer and the applicant, but rejected to make any adjustments for these differences. In this respect, so the applicant states, the Commission inter alia ignored the statements by the analogue country producer itself which demonstrated that these differences existed and had an impact on price comparability. — According to the applicant, the Commission further imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on Jinan in violation of its obligations under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the principle of sound administration, in relation to each of the requested adjustments addressed above.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/29

Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Maña and Others v SRB

(Case T-552/17)

(2017/C 369/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Maña, S.L. (Teo, Spain) and 113 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Take note of the annulment proceedings against the ‘Decision of the Single Resolution Board made at the Executive Session on 7 June 2017 relating to the resolution plan of Banco Popular Español, S.A., legal person identification No 80H66LPTVDLM0P28XF25, addressed to the FROB (SRB/EES/2017/08)’;

— Annul the contested Decision;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/36

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Garriga Sadurní and Martí Fonts v SRB

(Case T-514/17)

(2017/C 374/54)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Antonia Elisenda Garriga Sadurní (Barcelona, Spain) and Josep María Martí Fonts (Barcelona) (represented by: E. Silva Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, with effect ex tunc, thereby rendering it invalid and devoid of effects;

— Order the payment of compensation to the applicants in the amount of EUR 500 000.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/47

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Vallina Fonseca v SRB

(Case T-625/17)

(2017/C 374/70)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Antonio Vallina Fonseca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017, concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
1.

First plea in law: disclosure of the documents at issue would not compromise the protective purpose of investigations According to the applicant, the subject matter of EU pilot procedure 8572/15 is the large-scale and extensive infringements of the right to independent and impartial judicial authorities and the right to a fair trial by the Hungarian courts through the application of legislation relating to the conversion of so-called foreign currency loans into Hungarian currency. That legislation infringes the principle of the separation of powers as it interferes with private legal relationships between citizens. In particular, that legislation forces borrowers to bear the losses resulting from the exchange rate risk and prohibits challenges to the validity of credit agreements from being brought before the courts. The applicant maintains that negotiations between the European Commission and the Hungarian Government with a view to bringing the Hungarian legal system into conformity with EU law are inappropriate for achieving this objective since the courts in a State based on the rule of law are independent. The disclosure of the contested documents would not undermine the protective purpose of investigations but would, rather, further that objective, since only an open debate is capable of altering the case-law of the Hungarian courts.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/45

Action brought on 30 September 2017 — FV v Council

(Case T-153/17)

(2017/C 382/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: FV (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 definitively adopted on 5 December 2016;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, alleging that, in the present case, the staff reports for 2014 and 2015 adopted by the Council of the European Union concerning the applicant are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, insufficient reasoning and a breach of the duty of care.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/52

Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi)

(Case T-681/17)

(2017/C 402/68)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘Khadi’ — EU trade mark No 10 479 954

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 in Case R 2083/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

— make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(i) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/42

Action brought on 7 September 2017 — Vialto Consulting v Commission

(Case T-617/17)

(2017/C 402/56)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 190 951,93, as the actual loss which it has caused the applicant, and the sum of EUR 129 992,63 as loss of profit, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 150 000, as compensation for the harm to professional reputation which it has caused the applicant, with interest for late payment from delivery of judgment on the present dispute until settlement in full; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the public limited company named ‘Vialto Consulting Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság’ (‘Vialto’) seeks from the General Court of the European Union, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU in conjunction with Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage which it has suffered on account of unlawful conduct on the part of the Anti-Fraud Office (‘OLAF’) and of other services of the European Commission (‘the Commission’), in the context of performance of service contract No TR2010/0311.01-02/001 financed by the European Union, which had been entered into between the Central Finance and Contracts Unit (‘the CFCU’) of the Republic of Turkey and a consortium of companies in which Vialto participated.

Specifically, the Commission — both through OLAF and through other Commission services — has caused Vialto the following damage: (a) financial loss amounting to EUR 190 951,93 as actual loss; (b) financial loss amounting to EUR 129 992,63 as loss of profit; and (c) non-material harm amounting to EUR 150 000 on account of injury to its professional reputation.

Vialto submits that it has suffered the foregoing damage on account of acts and omissions of the Commission both during the on-the-spot check that OLAF carried out in respect of Vialto and after that check. It submits, more specifically, that the Commission infringed the following rules, which confer rights on individuals:

— Article 7(1) of Regulation No 2185/1996 in relation to the carrying out of checks on the part of OLAF, particularly in relation to its conferred and limited power to check;

— the right to good administration, the right to protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality, in relation to the check that OLAF carried out;
—

Take note of the lodging of the present action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to write down Banco Popular Español S.A.’s share capital to EUR 0 and to sell it subsequently to Banco de Santander S.A. for EUR 1, and after having examined all the documents officially available and assessed the grounds set out therein, declare that the decision taken by the Board in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2017 is invalid or annulled.
First plea in law, alleging that there is no aid element

The defendant has neither shown nor proved that the payment made to the applicant contained aid. Consequently, the defendant departs significantly from the case-law and from its own decision-making practice.
1.

First plea in law, alleging several manifest errors of assessment — Reliance on Council Regulation (EU) No 1351/2014 (2) That regulation concerns a category of persons other than that to which the applicant belongs and is therefore not a reason why the applicant should be included in the list at issue. — Allegation of a breach of contract The Council justifies the decision to add the applicant to the list at issue on the basis that, among other things, Mr Topor-Gilka led the contract negotiations with Siemens Gas Turbine Technology OOO concerning the original supply contract, in which connection the provisions of that original supply contract were, it is contended, subsequently breached. The appraisal of whether there was in fact a breach of contract is a matter for determination under Russian law. The parties to the supply contract have instituted proceedings before the Moscow Court of Arbitration. Until such time as that Court of Arbitration has decided the case, the allegation of a breach of contract constitutes an insufficiently solid factual basis and is unsuitable as a justification for Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP). — Transport of gas turbines to Crimea The allegation made against the applicant is that he was responsible for the onward transport of gas turbines to Crimea. The published press articles are not clear and are based on anonymous sources. It is the task of the competent EU authority to establish that the reasons relied on are sound; it is not the task of the undertaking concerned to adduce evidence to the contrary, namely that those reasons are not sound. — Infringement of the principles of international humanitarian law Russia is required under international law to restore and maintain public order in Crimea, which at the present time also includes ensuring a safe and constant energy supply. The humanitarian need for such an energy supply is not taken into account in the statement of reasons relating to Decision 2017/1418 (CFSP), and nor are the rules of international humanitarian law.
First plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, breach of superior law and disregard for the limits on conferred powers in connection with the vote in the Article 75 Committee,

The Commission disregarded mandatory time limits under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 (2) by introducing an amendment, without setting any deadline, to the draft decision and by bringing about an immediate vote, thereby infringing its obligation under Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 to work towards gathering maximum support within the Committee in an objective manner. In addition, the Commission deprived the representatives of the Member States of the possibility properly to adopt a position on the amended draft decision and thereby infringed Article 291(3) TFEU, under which effective supervision of the Commission by the Member States must be ensured. In addition, the Commission, through what was clearly a tactically-motivated approach, abusively and erroneously exercised its position as the chair of the Committee.
—

in the alternative, declare that the contested decisions do not constitute legally binding acts as regards the applicant in its action for damages brought against the Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary) in Case No 23. P. 25.843/2016 before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), and that, for that reason, the applicant is not directly and individually concerned, since it bases its claim for damages on the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, and not on the infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU;
—

annul the decision of 10 August 2017 (GESTDEM 2017/2593) refusing to communicate to the applicants the letter from the European Commission of 22 March 2017 to the French authorities regarding the protocol for the compensation of the EDF Group in respect of the repeal of the permit to operate the Fessenheim Nuclear Power Plant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/27

Action brought on 30 October 2017 — Lincoln Global/EUIPO (FLEXCUT)

(Case T-736/17)

(2018/C 013/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FLEXCUT’ — Application for registration No 15 111 198

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 in Case R 2225/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/57

Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Eglo Leuchten v EUIPO — Di-Ka (Design for lights)

(Case T-766/17)

(2018/C 022/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eglo Leuchten GmbH (Pill, Austria) (represented by: H. Lauf, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Di-Ka Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 2 435 768-0033

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2017 in Case R 738/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/60

Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)

(Case T-773/17)

(2018/C 022/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain)

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 figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ — European Union trade mark No 1 054 303

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1542/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare European Union figurative mark No 1 054 303 containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ invalid;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and order the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law