ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/31

Action brought on 30 October 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

(Case T-613/15)

(2016/C 007/42)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Sfiri, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul Contract Notice No 2015/S 162-295659 of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union, which was published in the Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, S 162 of 22 August 2015;

— order Frontex to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to enter into the contract announced, harm which they assess ex aequo et bono at EUR 85 000, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or whatever other amount the Court decides;

— order the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit that the contested notice must be annulled under Article 263 TFEU because it is contrary to the principle of proportionality and of non-discrimination which governs public procurement and infringes Article 102(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 (the Financial Regulation) (1) and Articles 146(1) and 147 of Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012. (2)

(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).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).
3.

The applicant also indicates that as further specified in the developments contained in the application, the moral damage suffered by the applicant is quantified to the amount of 1 000 000 Euros; and the material damage, which is quantified by independent auditors, amounts to 84 767,66 UK Pounds plus 3 774 187,07 Euro plus 1 532 688 USD, without prejudice of any additional amount that may be established in the course of the procedure. Therefore, the total amount of the applicant’s claim for damages is 84 767,66 UK Pounds plus 4 774 187,07 Euro plus 1 532 697,01 USD plus any other amount that may be established in the course of the procedure.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/69

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Tillotts Pharma v OHIM — Ferring (OCTASA)

(Case T-632/15)

(2016/C 027/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘OCTASA’ — Application for registration No 8 169 881

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2015 in Case R 2386/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/73

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Pharm-a-care Laboratories v OHIM — Pharmavite (VITAMELTS)

(Case T-713/15)

(2016/C 038/99)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharm-a-care Laboratories Pty. Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pharmavite LLC (California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VITAMELTS’ — Community trade mark No 11 403 581

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 in Case R 2649/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division in its entirety so that Application for Revocation No. 8627 C is rejected;

— order OHIM and Pharmavite LLC to pay the Appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. It erred in law in finding that the Appellant has acted in bad faith when filing the application for registration of the contested trade mark;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/66

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Les Éclaires v OHIM — L’éclaireur International (L’ECLAIREUR)

(Case T-680/15)

(2016/C 038/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Les Éclaires GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Bund, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L’éclaireur International (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘L’ECLAIREUR’ — Community trade mark No 3 494 028

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2266/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 15(1) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/67

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

(Case T-654/15)

(2016/C 048/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8681 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 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 48/52

Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

(Case T-603/15)

(2016/C 048/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/36

Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Gallardo Blanco v OHIM — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))

(Case T-716/15)

(2016/C 059/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) — Application for registration No 10 424 323

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 1502/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 April 2014;

— amend the previous decisions granting full registration of Community mark No 10 424 323;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings, of the opposition proceedings and of the appeal before OHIM.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/66

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Mulvad v Parliament

(Case T-653/15)

(2016/C 048/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nils Mulvad (Risskov, Denmark) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8732 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 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 59/32

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

(Case T-709/15)

(2016/C 059/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (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 the fact that it has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to its reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
First plea in law: No aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU

The applicant claims that the cap of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), constitutes a modification of a civil law compensation mechanism. No advantage through State resources or State-controlled resources is granted.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/40

Action brought on 22 December 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-752/15)

(2016/C 068/51)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C. Dede)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of which they were notified by letter of 29 October 2015 under reference DIGIT/R/3/SDP/PT 5107460 (2015), by which the Commission ranked in sixth place the applicants’ tender for one of the three individual lots, specifically Lot 3, in the context of the open procurement procedure under No DIGIT/R3/PO/2015/0008 entitled ‘Support and consulting services for technical informatics staff IV (STIS IV)’;

— order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered by them in respect of the opportunity which they lost to be ranked in first place for Lot 3 of the framework agreement STIS IV;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs of the applicants.

Pleas for annulment and main arguments

According to the applicants, the contested decision must be annulled as it provided a defective statement of reasons: (i) as regards the appraisal of the applicants’ technical offer, (ii) as regards the reasons for which the financial offers of the successful companies and consortia were not considered abnormally low, and on account of infringement by the Commission of the contractual documents and EU law in relation to the existence of manifest errors of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/33

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Othman v Council

(Case T-711/15)

(2016/C 059/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Razan Othman (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 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 the fact that he has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to his reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/29

Action brought on 28 December 2015 — RP Technik v OHIM — Tecnomarmi (RP ROYAL PALLADIUM)

(Case T-768/15)

(2016/C 078/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: RP Technik GmbH Profilsysteme (Bönen, Germany) (represented by: P. Henrichs, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tecnomarmi Snc (Treviso, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RP ROYAL PALLADIUM’ — Community trade mark application No 11 358 496

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2014 in Case R 2061/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— in the alternative, order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if the intervener is not a party to the proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging sufficiently serious infringements committed by the ECB. The plea is divided into three parts: — First part, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations; — Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’); — Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of Article 41 of the Charter and of the duty of care.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 111/26

Action brought on 26 November 2015 — City Train v EUIPO (City Train)

(Case T-699/15)

(2016/C 111/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: City Train GmbH (Regensburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Adori, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘City Train’ — Application No 13 154 315

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2015 in Case R 843/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the defendant’s decision of 9 September 2015 and order it to register the figurative trade mark ‘City Train’ indicating the colours ‘grey, light red’ which was applied for under application No 13 154 315 on 8 August 2014 as a European Union trade mark in respect of the goods and services in Classes 12, 37 and 42 referred to the application.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 90/20

Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in green and white)

(Case T-679/15)

(2016/C 090/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, 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 figurative mark (Representation of a crescent in green and white) — Application for registration No 13 189 139

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 78/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (Community trade mark No 13 189 139) in respect of the goods in Class 5 described in the application for registration;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law