ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Bank v SRB

(Case T-430/22)

(2022/C 340/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordea Bank Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant;

— order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 June 2022 — Good Services v EUIPO — ITV Studios Global Distribution (EL ROSCO)

(Case T-382/22)

(2022/C 340/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Good Services ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark EL ROSCO — EU trade mark No 13 265 021

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2022 in Case R 957/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 13 265 021 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 6 July 2022 — Nordea Kiinnitysluottopankki v SRB

(Case T-431/22)

(2022/C 359/99)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordea Kiinnitysluottopankki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant; and

— order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014, (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of that Regulation is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Action brought on 7 July 2022 — Nordea Rahoitus Suomi v SRB

(Case T-432/22)

(2022/C 359/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nordea Rahoitus Suomi Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the SRB of 11 April 2022, document no. SRB/ES/2022/18, including Annexes I, II and III, as far as it concerns the ex-ante contribution of the applicant; and

— order the SRB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the SRB has breached Article 69 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of 15 July 2014 (1) and Articles 16, 17, 41 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, by taking a dynamic approach to determine the target level for the ex-ante contributions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the determination of the target level by the SRB in the contested decision suffers from manifest errors of assessment regarding the expected growth rate for covered deposits and the evaluation of the current business cycle.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB has infringed Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 and Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by not applying the binding 12,5 % cap to the target level when determining the annual target level.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Articles 69 and 70 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 are in breach of the principle of risk-oriented setting of the contributions and the principle of proportionality, thereby infringing Articles 16, 17 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, if the target level is to be determined in a dynamic way and the cap according to Article 70(2) of that Regulation is not to be applied, as would be the case if the contested decision is upheld.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-455/22)

(2022/C 359/104)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the applicant under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement with nr. 80212 (hereafter the ‘Loan Agreement’) since 25 August 2017, comprising: — EUR 652 218,70, being the amount due to the applicant as at 30 June 2022, which is all principal of EUR 559 287,10, interest of EUR 38 925,60 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 54 006,00. — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due since 25 August 2017, and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement.
Action brought on 28 June 2022 — Berlin Hyp v SRB

(Case T-400/22)

(2022/C 380/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berlin Hyp AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the applicant’s 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
1.

First plea in law, alleging, first, infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 170(3) of the Financial Regulation, (1) points 23 and 31 of Annex I to the Financial Regulation, and the general principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment, and, secondly, manifest error of assessment. The applicants claim in that regard that either the Agency failed to examine whether the tender of the tenderer to whom the contract was awarded was prima facie abnormally low, it took the view that the tender submitted by that tenderer was not abnormally low, or it accepted that tenderer’s justification and took the view that its tender was not abnormally low.
—

annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/692 of 16 February 2022 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (‘the contested Regulation’), (1) insofar as it introduces a harmonised classification and labelling for three substances, namely N-carboxymethyliminobis (ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid) and its pentasodium and pentapotassium salts (together referred to as ‘DTPA’ or ‘the substance’), i.e. Recitals 2 and 3, Articles 1 and 2 and the Annex to the contested Regulation, insofar as they concern DTPA and, in particular, the entries introduced by the Annex to the contested Regulation in Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘the CLP Regulation’), (2) for the individual substances: — N-carboxymethyliminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetra(acetic acid); — Pentasodium(carboxylatemethyl)iminobis(ethylenenitrilo)tetraacetate; — Pentapotassium 2,2',2'',2''',2''''-(ethane-1,2-diylnitrilo) pentaacetate.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legality. — The Contested Acts insofar as they concern the applicant are in breach of fundamental human rights. — The Contested Acts, insofar as they concern the applicant, are in breach of international treaties. — The Contested Acts are in breach of the objectives set forth by the European Union’s legal foundations. — The Contested Acts, insofar as they concern the applicant, violate the principle requiring the measures to be targeted — they affect the civilian population not only in Belarus, but throughout the world. — The Contested Acts violate the principle of legal certainty. The reasons for listing of the applicant contain a number of terms, which are defined neither in the Contested Acts nor in jurisprudence. In view of this, their meaning is not clear to the applicant, and it cannot unambiguously understand them and decide how to act in the context of the measures taken against it by the Council.
Action brought on 4 August 2022 — Genzyme Europe v Commission

(Case T-483/22)

(2022/C 408/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Genzyme Europe BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Bogaert, B. Van Vooren and M. Oyarzabal Arigita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision that avalglucosidase alfa does not qualify as a ‘new active substance’, as contained in, or at least implied by, Commission Decision C(2022) 4531 final of 24 June 2022;

— annul Article 5 of that Commission Decision, providing that the medicinal product Nexviadyme — avalglucosidase alfa shall not be classified as an orphan medicinal product; and

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 (1) and of Article 14(11) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (2) and a manifest error of assessment, combined with inadequate statement of reasons (against the first part of the contested decision, refusing the status of ‘new active substance’).

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration, as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (against the first part of the contested decision, refusing the status of ‘new active substance’).

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 5(12)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products, (3) manifest error of assessment and inadequate statement of reasons (against the second part of the contested decision — withdrawal of orphan designation).

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1), as amended.

(3) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1), as amended.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 August 2022 — GKP v EUIPO — Cristalfarma (TIARA RUBIS)

(Case T-518/22)

(2022/C 398/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: GKP GmbH (Ehrenhausen an der Weinstraße, Austria) (represented by: I. Hödl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cristalfarma Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark TIARA RUBIS — Application for registration No 18 205 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2022 in Case R 1878/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested decision;

— uphold in its entirety paragraph 1 of the operative part of the contested decision; and

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs of the earlier stages of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in respect of certain services in class 35;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 September 2022 — House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)

(Case T-556/22)

(2022/C 424/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: House Foods Group, Inc. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and T. Wuttke, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before CPVO

Community Plant Variety at issue: SK20 — Application for a Community plant variety right No 2017/3314

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 1 July 2022 in Case A 018/2021

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order CPVO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation (EU) 2100/94 of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 September 2022 — ATPN v Commission

(Case T-567/22)

(2022/C 418/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Association Trinationale de Protection Nucléaire (ATPN) (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible and well founded;

— annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/1214 of 9 March 2022 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 as regards economic activities in certain energy sectors and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178 as regards specific public disclosures for those economic activities (1);

— order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 3 000 to the applicant.

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 irregularity of the procedure in that it infringed the provisions of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules of taxonomy.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 19 of Regulation No 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 were infringed and that the objectives were insufficiently ambitious.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the general criteria of Community law.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging incompatibility between investments in nuclear energy and green investments with regard to financial information.

(1) OJ 2022 L 188, p. 1.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088 (OJ 2020 L 198, p. 13).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 September 2022 — Société du Tour de France v EUIPO — FitX (TOUR DE X)

(Case T-604/22)

(2022/C 432/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société du Tour de France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and S. Vandezande, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FitX Beteiligungs GmbH (Essen, 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: Application for European Union figurative mark TOUR DE X — Application for registration No 16 701 039

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 July 2022 in Case R 1136/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s Second Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 September 2022 — Liquid Advertising v EUIPO — Liqui.do (Liquid+Arcade)

(Case T-592/22)

(2022/C 424/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Liquid Advertising, Inc. (El Segundo, California, United States) (represented by: M. Czarnecki, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liqui.do SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Liquid+Arcade’ — Application No 18 317 971

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2022 in Case R 2231/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, in their entirety, the contested decision and the decision of EUIPO’s Opposition Division of 12 November 2021 or, in the alternative, amend the contested decision by upholding the appeal lodged by the applicant;

— make an appropriate order as to costs in the applicant’s favour.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.