ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Compensate Mr Hassan, on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for the loss caused to him by the adoption against him of the restrictive measures referred to above, as follows: — Hold that the Council of the European Union is non-contractually liable for the pecuniary harm suffered and which will be suffered in the future and for the non-pecuinary harm; — Award Mr Hassan the sum of EUR 250 000 per month, with effect from 1 September 2011, in order to compensate him for the pecuniary loss suffered; — Award Mr Hassan the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered, and — Order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation for future non-pecuniary loss;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium L)

(Case T-583/11)

(2012/C 25/114)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 246/2011-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Premium L’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/26

Action brought on 23 May 2011 — Fon Wireless v OHIM — nfon (nfon)

(Case T-283/11)

2012/C 32/54

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fon Wireless Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: nfon AG (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;

— declare the proposed evidence admissible;

— accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2011 in Case R 1017/2009-4 and, consequently, refuse the registration of Community trade mark No 6.206.321 ‘nfon’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: nfon AG.

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘nfon’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 38.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative and word mark ‘fon’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the opposing marks are similar; and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since nfon AG claims to be taking advantage of the reputation acquired by the earlier marks.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/38

Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

(Case T-624/11)

2012/C 32/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2011 in case R 2535/2010-2; and

— Order that the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ONESTO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No W00909305

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1980242 of the figurative mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11; Community trade mark registration No 40600 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 11 and 16; Finish trade mark registration No 218071 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously found that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.
—

Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly, — annul the decisions by which the European Commission refuses to pay the appellant the compensation due under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and order the European Commission to pay that compensation to the appellant immediately, together with additional compensation under common law representing the difference between the amount of the actual loss suffered and the part of that loss for which compensation is paid under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, — order the Commission to pay the appellant late-payment interest calculated from the month of December 2004, the date at which the work-related origin of the sickness, the amount of the loss sufferance and the stabilisation of his state of health ought to have been acknowledged, — order the European Commission to pay the appellant any sum which appears to the General Court to be adequate to compensate the appellant for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by him as a result of the numerous errors and irregularities committed by the services of the European Commission in the investigation of the medical procedures concerning him, — order the defendant to pay the costs at both instances.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly approved the aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, on the grounds that: — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU does not allow for approval of aid to part of an economic area; — the aid does not fulfil the requirement in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU that it must facilitate the development of certain economic areas; — the aid affects trading conditions in a manner contrary to the common interest, and accordingly — the aid does not serve a properly documented purpose of European interest. The applicant further submits that the exception in Article 107(3)(c) TFEU must be interpreted restrictively and that that provision does not allow for the grant of State aid on the basis of State financial considerations.
6.

Sixth plea in law, alleging harm resulting from the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons subject to sanctions, since the publication of the contested measures in the press has had an impact on the legitimate confidence which the applicant’s clients had in him.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/30

Appeal brought on 8 December 2011 by Harald Mische against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 Mische v Commission

(Case T-641/11 P)

2012/C 49/54

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Holland, J. Mische and M. Velardo, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-70/05 and, to the extent possible based on the facts before the Court deliver judgment, and:

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 11 November 2004 in so far as it determines the appelant’s grading;

— Order the Commission to make good any damage caused (including damages to his career, legal and regular pay, immaterial damages, with default interest etc.);

— Order the Commission to pay the cost of these proceedings and those before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to examine the plea of infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as well as the paragraph 3 of the said provision related to the right for damage compensation, namely its conditions of ‘fairness’ and ‘timeliness’ for handling the appellant's affairs in relation to a number of factual situations, although such a plea of infringement had been explicitly raised.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously declared as inadmissible the plea of infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations (1) with its specific legal conditions providing that not just equal, but, in fact, ‘identical conditions of recruitment and service career shall apply to all officials’.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously failed to consider the legally acquired continuity of career of former temporary agents, as clarified by the Court of Justice in its recent case-law (case C-177/10). In addition, the Civil Service Tribunal erroneously declared as inadmissible the plea of illegality of Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations arguing that the appellant had not been graded under that provision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1) concerning the taking of a decision by a competent authority, in so far as that authority: — should be a judicial authority and not an administrative authority; — should be able to rely upon the principle of cooperation in good faith; — cannot be the Government of the United States because of the special features of the rules governing listing in the United States; — cannot be an authority which does not respect the procedural rights of the persons concerned. The applicant further claims that the Council does not produce any evidence showing that, in this case, the national decisions concerned are based on serious evidence or clues.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/13

Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

(Case T-636/11)

2012/C 65/26

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;

— reject the opposition;

— refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aznar textil, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 157/7

Action brought on 7 March 2012 — Buzil-Werk Wagner v OHIM — Roca Sanitario (Roca)

(Case T-115/12)

2012/C 157/12

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Buzil-Werk Wagner GmbH & Co. KG (Memmingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waldhauser, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 January 2012 (Case No R 1907/2010-4) and reject the opposition brought by Roca Sanitario, SA, Av. Diagonal, 513, E-08029 Barcelona (Spain).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Roca’ for goods in Class 3 (application No 6 800 726)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Roca Sanitario, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish trade marks ‘Roca’ (trade mark Nos 1 020 043, 2 543 451, 424 875 and 915 635) for certain goods in Classes 19 and 21 and the international trade mark ‘Roca’ (trade mark No 905 212) for certain goods in Classes 11, 19, 20 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision and rejection of the Community trade mark application in respect of all the goods applied for

Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the reasoning of the contested decision is insufficient in the light of Article 296 TFEU and with regard to the conditions concerning: (i) a selective economic advantage for operators in the cattle and sheep sectors; (ii) the State origin of the measures adopted by the applicant; (iii) the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States; and (iv) the direct connection between the action taken by the applicant and the extended voluntary levies, also known as binding voluntary levies, charged between 1996 and 2004.
—

infringement of Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) (hereafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’); in that the Council manifestly erred in its assessment, by rejecting the applicants’ claim, that PTEO and EOS constitute a single economic entity. As a result, the Council has deducted an impermissible notional commission pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation when determining the export price, since it is well-established jurisprudence that the existence of a single economic entity precludes such a deduction of a notional commission;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 157/9

Action brought on 27 March 2012 — Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission

(Case T-134/12)

2012/C 157/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Investigación y Desarrollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT, SA (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission Ref. Ares (2012) 39854 of 19January 2012 in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of the debit notes corresponding to audit 09-INFS-001/041;

— order the Commission to compensate the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s unlawful conduct at issue in the amount of EUR 732 788.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings has entered into a number of contracts with the Commission in relation to R&D, all regulated on the basis of Commission Decision C(2003) 3834 of 23 October 2003, which provides for a core contract of the type FP 5 or FP 6 and for the general conditions FP 5 and FP 6.

In relation to those contracts, and on the basis of the results of an investigation carried out by OLAF and an audit performed by the Commission, the Commission adopted a decision revoking subsidies.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence, as a result of the means of execution of the said audit.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, by denying the applicant the applicable legal framework throughout the procedure.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a failure on the part of the Commission to comply with its duty to state reasons.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the presumption of innocence, as a result of the tone adopted by DG INFSO in its audit report.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a failure to have regard for the right to good administration, as a result of failure on the part of the auditors to comply with their duty of impartiality and equality.

6. Sixth plea in law, infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations, particularly with regard to the lack of accreditation of the external auditors and the origin of the audit process itself.

7. Seventh plea in law, infringement of the principle of proportionality.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/24

Action brought on 3 January 2012 — Olive Line International v OHIM — Carapelli Firenze (Maestro de Oliva)

(Case T-4/12)

2012/C 89/42

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carapelli Firenze SpA (Tavarnelle Val di Pesa (Florence), Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and find that the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 September 2011 in Case R 1612/2010-2 is inconsistent with Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (now Regulation No 297/2009), in so far as that decision annulled the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 July 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 1344995, and rejected the application to register as a Community trade mark international mark No 938.133 for part of the goods in Classes 29 and 30 in respect of which registration was sought;

— order the defendant, and where appropriate the intervener, to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark with the word element ‘Maestro de Oliva’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Carapelli Firenze SPA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MAESTRO’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal upheld and application rejected in relation to part of the goods in respect of which registration was sought

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) and related articles of Regulation No 207/2009, since the use made by the defendant of the opposing mark constitutes a deliberate change in the original concept of the mark represented by the opposing mark and, therefore, substantially alters the distinctive character of the mark ‘MAESTRO’, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.
9.

Ninth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) and Article 7(5) of Regulation No 659/1999 in so far as the order for recovery and the obligation to desist contained in Article 4(1) and Article 4(4) respectively are contrary to the law on State aid Recovery under Article 4(1) relates not to ‘aid’ but to DPAG’s revenues from regulated stamp prices. Compliance with the order no longer to benefit cannot be achieved by means of a reduction in ‘aid’. A reduction in the ‘pension subsidy’ would have no effect on the size of the ‘comparative advantage’. To cease to benefit in accordance with Article 4(4) would require the amendment of price regulation, and thus encroaches upon the applicant’s regulatory sovereignty.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/15

Action brought on 6 January 2012 — Stichting Het Groninger Landschap and Others v Commission

(Case T-16/12)

2012/C 109/35

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Stichting Het Groninger Landschap (Haren, Netherlands), Vereniging It Fryske Gea (Olterterp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Drentse Landschap (Assen, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Overijssel (Dalfsen, Netherlands); Stichting Het Geldersch Landschap (Arnhem, Netherlands); Stichting Flevo-Landschap (Lelystad, Netherlands); Stichting Het Utrechts Landschap (De Bilt, Netherlands); Stichting Landschap Noord-Holland (Heiloo, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zuid-Hollands Landschap (Rotterdam, Netherlands); Stichting Het Zeeuwse Landschap (Wilhelminadorp, Netherlands); Stichting Het Noordbrabants Landschap (Haaren, Netherlands); Stichting Het Limburgs Landschap (Lomm, Netherlands); and Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (’s-Graveland, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. van Nuland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2011 in Case N308/2010, or, alternatively, annul that decision in so far as the applicants are beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law, which are similar to those put forward in Case T-15/12 Provincie Groningen and Others v Commission.
—

that the Institutions breached Article 11(9) in connection with Article 2(12) of ‘the basic Regulation’ (1) by failing to establish the amount of the dumping margin of the applicants. In addition, or in the alternative, the Institutions erred in law and exceeded their margin of discretion in their powers of prospective assessment under Article 11(3) by allowing the findings on lasting nature of changed circumstances to subsume the dumping findings, vitiating the findings on the changed dumping margin in the interim review and extending the scope of analysis of continuation of dumping so as to cover/affect the findings on dumping margin. Lastly, the Institutions infringed the applicants’ rights of defence with respect to dumping by failing to disclose their final calculation of dumping to the applicants.