ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/75

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Delić v Parliament

(Case T-662/15)

(2016/C 048/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Anuška Delić (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8344 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/82

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

(Case T-686/15)

(2016/C 048/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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

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

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word elements ‘Cremcaffé by Julius Meinl’ — Community trade mark No 11 406 915

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2517/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 406 915 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/56

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Cieśla v Parliament

(Case T-642/15)

(2016/C 048/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wojciech Cieśla (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8463 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/62

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-648/15)

(2016/C 048/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8361 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action brought on 2 December 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-705/15)

(2016/C 059/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

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

— order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging, first, the non-material harm caused by harm to its reputation, and, second, the material harm caused by the breakdown of its contractual relationships, by the loss of equipment and by the loss of revenue, which the applicant has suffered as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding that the aid measures granted to Femern A/S for the Fixed Link are compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The Commission erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project was of common European interest and in finding that the aid was necessary and proportionate. The Commission also erred in law and made a manifest error of assessment regarding the prevention of undue distortions of competition and balancing test and regarding the mobilisation of the State guarantees.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/36

Appeal brought on 17 December 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission

(Case T-734/15 P)

(2016/C 068/46)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by F. Simonetti and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: FE (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 6 October 2015 in Case F-119/14, FE v Commission;

— dismiss the action brought by FE in Case F-119/14 as unfounded;

— decide that each of the parties is to bear its own costs relating to the present proceedings;

— order FE to pay the costs of the proceedings brought before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.

1. First ground, alleging a number of errors of law committed by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and a distortion of the documents in the file in the selection board’s interpretation and application of the condition for admission relating to minimum professional experience.

2. Second ground, alleging an error of law in the CST’s conclusion that the Appointing Authority committed a manifest error of assessment.
Third plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of Article 107(1) TFEU in so far as the Commission finds that the APA confers an advantage on Starbucks Manufacturing EMEA BV as a result of the selection of the ‘Transactional Net Margin Method’ as settlement price methodology.

The Commission incorrectly states that the methodology agreed in the APA does not provide a reliable approach to a market outcome. Moreover, the Commission does not demonstrate that the remuneration to Alki and the surcharge on the cost price of the green beans have no business value.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/30

Action brought on 29 December 2015 — SeNaPro v OHIM — Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke (Dolokorn)

(Case T-769/15)

(2016/C 078/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: SeNaPro GmbH (Pommelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schröder, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke GmbH (Rottenmann, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Dolokorn’ — Application No 11 877 181

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2015 in Case R 2643/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by SeNaPro GmbH.

Plea in law
—

incorrect legal assessment of the measures in favour of the airport concerned in so far as certain measures were not classified as State aid for the purposes of Article 107(1) of TFEU and others were classified as State aid which is compatible with the common market,
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/45

Action brought on 15 December 2015 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament

(Case T-726/15)

(2016/C 098/60)

Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties

Applicants: Jožica Blaž Jamnik (Ljubljana, Slovenia) and Brina Blaž (Ljubljana) (represented by: D. Mihevc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare that the selection of the tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06 is unlawful;

— annul the selection of the tenderer;

— select the applicants as the best tenderer;

— in the alternative, award the applicants damages amounting to EUR 3 852 384,60 in the event that they are not selected as the best tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06;

— reimburse the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law: infringement of Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) According to the applicants, the selection of the best tenderer was made in breach of Article 113 of the regulation in question, since the predetermined criteria set out in the tender specifications were not taken into consideration.

2. Second plea in law: the selection procedure was conducted unlawfully In that regard, the applicants assert that none of the plans, graphic documentation and statistical calculations which they appended to their tender was examined, since they were not forwarded by the office in Ljubljana for the decision in Luxembourg.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 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 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/21

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Liedtke/Parliament

(Case T-652/15)

(2016/C 078/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dirk Liedtke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8547 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/51

Action brought on 7 January 2016 — Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs v OHIM — Takko (Southern Territory 23o48’25"S)

(Case T-6/16)

(2016/C 098/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH (Köngen, Germany) (represented by: T. Sambuc, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Awg Allgemeine Warenvertriebs GmbH

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Southern Territory 23o48’25"S’ –Community trade mark No 10 099 554

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 November 2015 in Case R 735/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by declaring that the application for the invalidity of Community word mark 10 099 554 Southern Territory 23o48’25"S is rejected.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/26

Action brought on 18 January 2016 — DMC v OHIM — Etike’ International (De Giusti Orgoglio)

(Case T-18/16)

(2016/C 090/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DMC Srl (San Vendemiano, Italy) (represented by: B. Osti, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etike’ International Srl (Baronissi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘De Giusti Orgoglio’ — Application for registration No 9 499 468

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition procedure

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2015 in Case R 1764/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision on the ground that it is unfounded in fact and law;

— order OHIM to pay the costs;

— order the production of the files relating to the opposition proceedings No B 001757973 and Case R 1764/2013-5.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

of 2 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 7 Grant Agreements and letter dated 02 December 2015 (ref. Ares (2015) 5513293) on FP 6 Grant Agreement regarding the defendant’s decision to proceed with the recovery further to the audit (RAIA000024) on FP7 closed grant agreements and the audit (RAIA000027) on FP6 contracts;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 106/41

Action brought on 25 January 2016 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Juwel)

(Case T-31/16)

(2016/C 106/48)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Juwel’ — Application for registration No 12 426 888

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2015 in Case R 2571/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/37

Appeal brought on 17 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-82/12 De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-71/16 P)

(2016/C 118/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 68 to 75 of the judgment itself;

— Consequently, order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

— Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-82/12).

The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.

The appellant argues, in particular, that the claim for damages in Case F-82/12 was wrongly treated as equivalent to the claim for damages in Case F-55/08, and that there was an incorrect finding of res judicata regarding some of the requests for compensation.