ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/44

Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM (JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!)

(Case T-623/15)

(2016/C 016/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, A. Marx and A. Berger, lawyers)

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 containing the word elements ‘JEDE FLASCHE ZÄHLT!’ — Application No 13 510 123

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2015 in Case R 479/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the proceedings before OHIM.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 7/31

Action brought on 2 November 2015 — Basic Net v OHIM (Representation of three vertical stripes)

(Case T-612/15)

(2016/C 007/41)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, 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 three vertical stripes’ — Application for registration No 12 880 481

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2015 in Case R 2845/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

— alter the contested decision on the basis of the arguments, contained in the present application in conjunction with the evidence and documents adduced in the first two stages of the proceedings and, without referring the case back, grant the application for registration No 12 880 481, on the ground that the contested decision must be regarded as flawed for breach, first, of the rules laid down in Articles 7(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, or, second, of the rules laid down in Article 7(3) of that regulation.

In the alternative:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

— determine the amount of the costs of the proceedings to be borne by OHIM.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/70

Action brought on 16 November 2015 — Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

(Case T-637/15)

(2016/C 027/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alma-The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Coral Gables, United States of America) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE’ — Application for registration No 9 784 539

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 356/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the application made by the Commission of the normal taxation principle and objective of the AGL in explaining why the eight exemptions in question do not result in selectivity is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.
—

First part, alleging that the measures taken by the Council are unlawful in that, first, the restrictive measures are unjustified and disproportionate and, secondly, they infringe the applicant’s rights to good administration and reputation, and his right to property.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/72

Action brought on 25 November 2015 — Stock Polska v OHIM- Lass & Steffen (LUBELSKA)

(Case T-701/15)

(2016/C 038/97)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Stock Polska Sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: T. Gawrylczyk, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lass & Steffen GmbH Wein- und Spirituosen-Import (Lübeck, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: the applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘LUBELSKA’ — Application No 11 657 459

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2015 in Case R 1788/2014-5

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 48/73

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Clerix v Parliament

(Case T-660/15)

(2016/C 048/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Kristof Clerix (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8327 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 48/81

Action brought on 26 November 2015 — Freistaat Bayern v Commission

(Case T-683/15)

(2016/C 048/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Freistaat Bayern (represented by: U. Soltész and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision in so far as it declares that the Federal Republic of Germany granted State aid unlawfully in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out by the Land of Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria, which is during the period starting 1 January 2007 incompatible with the internal market;

— annul Articles 2 to 4 of the contested decision in so far as they order recovery of the aid with interest in respect of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.

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

1. First plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and of Article 6(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) Within the context of the first plea in law, the applicant claims that the alleged aid from the Land budget was not covered by the opening decision.

2. Second plea in law: No State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU The applicant asserts that the dairies in connection with the funding of the milk quality tests would not receive State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because they were not given any selective advantage.

3. Third plea in law (in the alternative): No infringement of the notification requirement The applicant submits that the measures must be regarded as ‘existing aid’. The recovery therefore infringes Article 108(1) and (3) TFEU and Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

4. Fourth plea in law (in the alternative): An error of law was made in dismissing the compatibility of the aid with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3) TFEU

5. Fifth plea in law (in the alternative): The order for recovery of the aid infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations

(1) Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/37

Appeal brought on 8 December 2015 by LP against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 September 2015 in Case F-73/14 LP v Europol

(Case T-719/15 P)

(2016/C 059/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: LP (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Set aside the order of 28 September 2015 in Case F-73/14 and give a ruling on the case or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— Order Europol to pay the cost of both parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested order is vitiated by several errors of law and infringes EU law, in particular in respect of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons, the duty of care and the manifest error of assessment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/77

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Borg v Parliament

(Case T-664/15)

(2016/C 048/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jacob Borg (St. Julian’s, Malta) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8486 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 59/32

Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council

(Case T-710/15)

(2016/C 059/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (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 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.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/40

Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Genossenschaftsverband Bayern v Commission

(Case T-723/15)

(2016/C 059/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Genossenschaftsverband Bayern e. V. (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Bittner and N. Thies, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as: — in Article 1 it declares that State aid was unlawfully granted in Germany in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU in respect of the milk quality tests carried out in Bavaria in favour of dairy sector undertakings in Bavaria and that that State aid has been incompatible with the internal market since 1 January 2007; — in Articles 2 to 4 it orders the recovery of the aid from the beneficiaries, together with interest;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 6295 final of 18 September 2015 concerning State aid SA.35484 (2013/C) (ex SA.35484 (2012/NN)) granted by Germany in respect of milk quality tests pursuant to the Milk and Fat Law.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-722/15 Interessengemeinschaft privater Milchverarbeiter Bayerns v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 68/37

Action brought on 18 December 2015 — The Art Company B & S/OHMI — Manifatture Daddato et Laurora (SHOP ART)

(Case T-735/15)

(2016/C 068/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: L. Sánchez Calderón and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manifatture Daddato SpA (Barletta, Italy), Sabina Laurora (Trani, Italy)

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: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SHOP ART’ — Application for registration No 12 030 921

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 3050/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 59/26

Appeal brought on 27 November 2015 by Roderich Weissenfels against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Case F-92/14, Weissenfels v Parliament

(Case T-684/15 P)

(2016/C 059/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance and

— consequently order the Parliament to pay the damages for non-material harm sought and to pay the costs of proceedings at both instances, including those of the pre-litigation procedure and all necessary expenses and disbursements of the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of the present appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, ECR-SC, EU:F:2015:110).

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

1. First plea in law: Breach of the requirement of impartiality (the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) The appellant asserts that both the judicial proceedings which led to the judgment under appeal and the judgment itself are consistently characterised by recurrent breaches of the requirement of impartiality. Those breaches are obvious in both subsidiary proceedings and in breaches of law which are relevant for the decision.

2. Second plea in law: Denial of justice, infringement of the principles of logic and distortion of the facts with regard to the refusal to have the fulfilment of criminal offences examined

3. Third plea in law: Infringement of the principles of logic, distortion of the facts and manifestly incorrect assessment in respect of the disputed slanderous claim contained in the e-mail of 10 April 2002
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/26

Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)

(Case T-748/15)

(2016/C 078/36)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gauff’ — Community trade mark No 6 192 521

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 1350/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Regulation No 2868/95;

— Breach of the right to be heard;
—

First, the decision does not demonstrate the existence of an economic advantage as it identifies the execution/implementation of the Award as the incompatible aid. The present case meets the conditions of the Asteris case-law (judgment of 27 September 1988 in Asteris and Others, 106/87 to 120/87). Any advantage (quod non) pre-dates Romania’s accession to the EU and is thus outside the scope of EU State aid rules. Second, the decision does not demonstrate the existence of selectivity. The Bilateral Investment Treaty Romania-Sweden (‘BIT’ — the legal basis of the Award) establishes a system of general liability that is equally applicable to any investor. Third, the decision does not demonstrate that the measure in question is imputable to the Romanian State. Romania has no margin of appreciation to execute the Award.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 191/34

Action brought on 30 December 2015 — Bittorrent Marketing v EUIPO — BitTorrent (bittorrent)

(Case T-771/15)

(2016/C 191/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bittorrent Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Hopper, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BitTorrent, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU mark No 3 216 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2275/2013-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and reject the application for revocation of the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the first sentence of Article 76(1) and of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;