ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

The applicants consider that as non-resident Irish companies, they were only liable to Irish corporation tax under Section 25 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 on ‘chargeable profits’ attributable to activities performed by their Irish branches. The Opinions properly reflected the branches’ ‘chargeable profits’ and did not therefore confer an advantage. The Commission also erred by finding that profit allocation under Section 25 must be under the ‘arm’s length principle’ (the ‘ALP’).
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, breach of the principle of non-discrimination and infringement of the rules relating to the burden of evidence. In this connection, the applicant alleges that the defendant granted derogations to other families while refusing him such a derogation, without such a difference in treatment being justified by objective circumstances.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/43

Action brought on 13 January 2017 — APF v Parliament

(Case T-16/17)

(2017/C 063/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alliance for Peace and Freedom (APF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article I.4.1 of the defendant’s decision of 12 December 2016 (Number: FINS 2017 15) relating to the reduction of the pre-financing amount to 33 % of the agreed maximum amount and the order that security be provided;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are essentially identical with or similar to the pleas in law set out in Case T-13/17, Europa Terra Nostra v Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/30

Action brought on 17 January 2017 — LA Superquimica v EUIPO — D-Tack (D-TACK)

(Case T-24/17)

(2017/C 086/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LA Superquimica, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: D-Tack GmbH (Hüttlingen, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘D-TACK’ — Application for registration No 9 650 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 1983/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the EUIPO decision dated 15/11/2016;

— order EUIPO and those whose oppose this request to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal failed to consider Sitadex extracts concerning Spanish trade mark registration Nos: 2515958, 2516679, 2542249, 2591412 and 2668711 submitted by the applicant;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty of care, in that, by rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin for reasons that are erroneous and contrary to the principles identified from the case-law, the Council extends the duration of the proceedings and thereby fails to respect the principle of reasonable time and, more generally, the principle of sound administration.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/57

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (teaespresso)

(Case T-68/17)

(2017/C 104/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘teaespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 475

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 1099/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

— order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

— order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
2.

Pleas in law concerning the financial correction imposed on the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. The applicant alleges in this respect that: — The single financial correction for errors in the admissibility of expenses in the sum of EUR 122 112,95 (controls concerning the operational programmes: investment in the OP ‘A’) is unlawful since the Commission infringed Articles 105 and 106 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96 (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), in respect of Articles 55(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 52 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549), given that the national authorities carried out the controls referred to in the abovementioned articles properly, having respected the requirements of the applicable rules and, in any event, given that there is no risk to the fund. — The flat-rate correction of 5 %, in the sum of EUR 2 191 585 (item: ‘Weaknesses in programme approval and authorisation of expenditure, Autonomous Community of Catalonia’), is unlawful since the Commission infringed Article 52(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, in conjunction with Articles 103, 105(2)(d), 106, 107(1)(c) to (e), 108(1)(b) and 109(1)(a) to (c) of Regulation No 1580/2007, in that the Spanish authorities have established compliance with the rules referred to and, in any event, there is no risk to the fund. — In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality by infringement of Article 52(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1306/2013 in conjunction with Document VI/5330/97 establishing the Guidelines for the calculation of the financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/44

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)

(Case T-94/17)

(2017/C 112/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by: V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tigha’ — Application for registration No 11 459 617

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 in Case R 693/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
11.

Eleventh plea, based on the undermining of the independence of a member of parliament and the consequences of the lack of any binding mandate. The contested acts were undoubtedly intended to impede the freedom to exercise the applicant’s parliamentary mandate, by depriving her of the financial means necessary to carry out her mission. Furthermore, the applicant was unable to receive instructions from the Secretary General as to how she was to carry out her mandate, subject to the threat of financial sanctions.
—

First, the European Commission violated Articles 2(1), 2(2) and 3 of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by finding that the country of origin principle does not apply to the film levy. Second, the European Commission violated Article 13(1) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by considering that this article allows Member States to impose financial contributions for the promotion of European works on video-on-demand providers who are established in other Member States.
—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Gabriel Amisi Kumba;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/24

Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB

(Case T-107/17)

(2017/C 129/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should order the defendant to pay the following sums plus interest in each case at a rate of 5 % above the respective base rate from the date on which the action was commenced:

— to the first applicant: EUR 314 000;

— to the second applicant: EUR 54 950;

— to the third applicant: EUR 2 355 000;

— to the fourth applicant: EUR 303 795;

— to the fifth applicant: EUR 750 460.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action for damages, the applicants claim that the defendant breached its obligations by failing to refer, in its opinion of 17 February 2012 on the terms of securities issued or guaranteed by the Greek State (CON/2012/12), to the unlawfulness of the proposed restructuring of Greece’s public debt through a mandatory exchange by Law 4050/2012.

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

1. First plea in law: failure to refer to the impermissibility of the compulsory restructuring in the light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, since amending clauses cannot effectively be inserted retroactively into existing government bonds

2. Second plea in law: failure to find that the expropriatory effect of the envisaged Greek legislative proposal, which provided for a mandatory exchange without appropriate compensation being laid down in the legislation itself, constituted an infringement of the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

3. Third plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 63 TFEU
—

Annul the refusal of 10 January 2017 by the Secretary-General on behalf of the Commission, notified on 17 January 2017, to grant the applicant access to any submissions filed by any of the parties in ongoing infringement proceedings regarding an alleged violation by Ireland of the Working Time Directive.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 42c of the Staff Regulations is unlawful, in so far as it disregards the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in particular the possibility of making it easier for officials to work until the age of 67 or, in exceptional circumstances, until the age of 70.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/33

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Representation of four green squares)

(Case T-184/17)

(2017/C 161/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration of the EU figurative mark (Representation of four green squares) — Application No 14 781 819

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 1115/2016-1

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) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
5.

This action maintains that it is not possible for a Member State of the European Union and more particularly the Eurozone, to undertake ex proprio motu within its domestic legal order (Parliament — Council of Ministers –Ministerial Decisions) a unilateral restructuring of its sovereign debt, without the authorisation or tacit consent of the ECB; there would otherwise be financial chaos. In the present case there existed the tacit consent of the ECB, and consequently its non-contractual liability is engaged with respect to losses amounting to 53.5 %, a level that strikes at the heart of the right to property. It is manifest that there is a causal link between the responsibility, by omission, of the ECB for the losses at issue, the culpability of its agencies and its non-contractual liability.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the breach of the Staff Regulations and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Union as a result of the application of the defendant’s internal rules which equate officials and temporary agents with indefinite contracts. Moreover, by differentiating between temporary agents with fixed-term contracts and temporary agents with contracts concluded for an indefinite period, the defendant infringes the Staff Regulations and, in the case at hand, the principle of equal treatment.
1.

First plea in law, alleging disregard of the rights of the defence. The applicant submits that the product scope of the investigation was changed between the revised final disclosure document and the adoption of the implementing regulation, to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant submits that the Commission subsequently explained that a material change had been envisaged. The applicant was not given the opportunity of commenting on the change before the regulation entered into force. The applicant claims that the Commission did not, at any stage of the investigation, inform the parties concerned that the surface roughness requirement for products to avoid the application of customs duties could apply to both the products’ interior and exterior surfaces, departing from the European product standards for sanitary fittings. Thus the applicant had the legitimate expectation that the product exclusion corresponds to the stated objective of excluding sanitary fittings, and was thereby deprived of any real opportunity of commenting on the scope of the product exclusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/30

Action brought on 10 March 2017 — Claro Sol Cleaning v EUIPO — Solemo (Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972)

(Case T-159/17)

(2017/C 195/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Claro Sol Cleaning, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solemo Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ — Application for registration No 13 318 993

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 478/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 9 January 2017 in Case R 478/2016-1, which partially upheld the appeal filed by Solemo Oy and partially annulled the decision ruling on opposition No. B 2472267, against the European Union trademark application No. 13.318.993 ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ property of the appellant, by virtue of which the said trademark has been entirely rejected in classes 37 and 39 and partially rejected in class 35;

— grant the application for registration of the European Union trademark No. 13.318.993 ‘Claro Sol Facility Services desde 1972’ for all services covered in classes 35, 37 and 39, due to the lack of existence of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier national trademark, registered in Finland under No. 250.356 ‘SOL’, property of the intervener, is protected;

— order the intervener to bear the costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
—

Annul and set aside the following decisions and acts, where appropriate having previously declared illegal and not applicable to the applicant the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and the linguistic regime at issue under Article 277 TFEU: — the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) and of the Selection Board of 09/11/15 not to include the name of the candidate on the reserve list drawn from the competition EPSO/AD/293/14; — the decision of EPSO and of the Selection Board of 23/06/2016 not to reconsider the decision of 09/11/2015 and not to re-admit the candidate’s name on the reserve list; — the decision of EPSO of 22/12/2016 to respond unfavorably to the applicant’s administrative complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision of the Selection Board not to enter her name in the reserve list of competition EPSO/AD/293/14 and against the negative review decision. — the reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/293/14.
2.

Second plea in law, in support of the action for failure to act, alleging that the Commission has failed to take action to prevent the fragmentation of the Internal Market — The Commission has a duty to exercise its powers in order to prevent the risk of fragmentation of the internal market for pan-European mobile satellite services that provide universal connectivity, which would be caused if certain national regulatory authorities (‘NRAs’) decide — on their own motions — to allow a specific company to use the 2 GHz Band for a new purpose. Indeed, the failure to exercise this duty in response to the applicant’s request to act Letter and the requests for guidance by NRAs have increased the risk that some Member States authorise use of the 2 GHz Band for new purposes.
1.

First plea in law, alleging alleging a number of procedural heads of complaint including the duty to give reasons relating to the determination of the amount of the fine and in particular the need for the adjustment applied under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (1) and regarding the percentage of the applied increase. The Applicants also submit that the Commission breached their rights of defense, their right to be heard and the principle of good administration by not stating the intention to apply an increase under point 37 of the Fining Guidelines in the Statement of Objections or in any Supplementary Statement of Objections. They also plead infringement of the duty to give reasons, the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and proportionality because the Commission increased the amount of the Applicants’ fine by 10 % based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines and applied this uniform increase to all the undertakings that had participated in the alleged infringement, without taking into account that the Applicants’ individual participation differed greatly from that of the other undertakings involved.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/50

Action brought on 22 May 2017 — Wajos v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-313/17)

(2017/C 231/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Wajos GmbH (Dohr, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, R. Krillke and B. Schneiders, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 14 886 097

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 1526/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/35

Action brought on 4 May 2017 — Uponor Innovation v EUIPO — Swep International (SMATRIX)

(Case T-264/17)

(2017/C 221/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Uponor Innovation AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swep International AB (Landskrona, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SMATRIX’ — Application for registration No 12 540 431

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 236/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order SWEP International to compensate the Applicant for the costs before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/45

Action brought on 17 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (2000)

(Case T-301/17)

(2017/C 231/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘2000’ — EU trade mark No 12 511 069

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 651/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;