ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/16

Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission

(Case T-431/16)

(2016/C 371/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, by which the applicant’s complaint was rejected on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.

In this connection, the applicant submits that the application or non-application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is not within the Commission’s power of discretion. On the contrary, it argues, the Commission must take into account the particular circumstances of each case and cannot, on the basis of that provision and without further clarification, reject a matter already under examination by a national authority.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
—

by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, later extended to imports from Malaysia, the European Union breached its obligations arising from membership of the WTO, specifically laid down in the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 383/22

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — FTI Touristik v EUIPO — Prantner and Giersch (Fl)

(Case T-475/16)

(2016/C 383/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harald Prantner (Hamburg, Germany) and Daniel Giersch (Monaco, Monaco)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the mark at issue: the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark with the word element ‘Fl’ — Application No 12 201 273

Proceedings before EUIPO: opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 June 2016 in Case R 480/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/49

Action brought on 26 August 2016 — Epsilon International v Commission

(Case T-477/16)

(2016/C 402/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Epsilon International SA (Marousi, Greece) (represented by: D. Bogaert and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1) On the basis of article 272 TFEU: — declare that the amounts paid by the European Commission to the Epsilon under the Grant Agreements BRISEIDE, i-SCOPE and SMART-ISLANDS constitute eligible costs and that Epsilon did not commit errors of a systematic nature in the performance of these agreements; — declare that the Commission’s request for reimbursement of the amounts paid under the BRISEIDE agreement is wholly unfounded and that they should not be repaid to the European Commission; — declare that the European Commission’s decisions to suspend payments regarding Grant agreements i-LOCATE, eENV-Plus, GeoSmartCity and c-SPACE are unfounded; — order the Commission to reimburse the amounts paid by Epsilon to carry out additional financial audits to contradict the erroneous findings of the auditors mandated by the Commission and to compensate the moral prejudice suffered by Epsilon, assesses provisionally on an ex aequo et bono basis at EUR 10 000.

2) On the grounds of article 263 TFEU, annul the European Commission’s decision of June 17th 2016 (ref. Ares (2016)2835215) to register Epsilon in the Early Detection and Exclusion System Database (EDES).

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action based on the grounds of article 272 TFUE, Epsilon considers that the findings raised by the auditors and endorsed by the European Commission which relate to the personnel costs declared for the performance of the BRISEIDE, SMART-ISLANDS and i-SCOPE projects are erroneous. More specifically, Epsilon argues that no irregularity were committed regarding the time recording system, the productive hours and hourly rate calculations, the lack of invoice for the owners’ work and the fact that the agreements concluded with the in-house consultants had not been registered to the Tax Office. In any case, any minor errors regarding the performance of these contracts cannot be regarded as an error of a systematic nature.

Moreover, Epsilon contests the Commission’s decision to suspend the payments for the performance of the EU funded projects i-LOCATE, eENV-Plus, GeoSmartCity and c-SPACE and considers that they are not legally founded.

Finally, Epsilon requests a financial compensation for the material and non-material suffered by Epsilon due to the Commission’s decisions.

In support of the action based on the grounds of article 263 TFUE, Epsilon requests the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision to register Epsilon in the Early Detection and Exclusion System database (EDES), due to the alleged potentially systematic nature of the errors committed in the performance of the abovementioned projects. The applicant considers that this decision breaches the principle of proportionality and the rights of the defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/56

Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (BOBO cornet)

(Case T-648/16)

(2016/C 402/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BOBO cornet’– Application for registration No 12 299 343

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2016 in Case R 906/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/29

Action brought on 21 September 2016 — KUKA Systems v EUIPO (MATRIX BODY SHOP)

(Case T-683/16)

(2016/C 410/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: KUKA Systems GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Maneth and C. Huch-Hallwachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MATRIX BODY SHOP’ — Application No 14 182 661

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2016 in Case R 2503/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2016 — Waldhausen v EUIPO (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head)

(Case T-717/16)

(2016/C 441/37)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Waldhausen GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: V. Ekey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of the silhouette of a horse’s head) — Application for registration No 14 588 933

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 1195/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
1.

First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, manifest error of assessment and infringement of 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).
Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission

(Case T-706/16 P)

(2016/C 454/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: HB (Schweich, Germany) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission; giving judgment itself,

— annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise;

— order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds, alleging several errors of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST).

First, the appellant alleges that the CST erred in law in taking the view that the appointing authority had carried out an effective comparative assessment of the merit points, that is to say, on an objective and equal basis, whereas it confined itself to disregarding the appellant’s merit points for 2013, because the 2013 staff report did not contain an assessment, without attempting to obtain comparable sources of information or information.

Second, the appellant considers that the CST erred in law in finding that the absence of an assessment in the 2013 staff report is attributable to the appellant and that the appointing authority was prevented from assessing the merit points for that year by the fact that there was no challenge by the appellant within the period prescribed in the Staff Regulations.

Third, the CST, according to the appellant, erred in law in finding that she had not adduced evidence to show that there was discrimination based on gender, whereas her staff report lacks any substantial assessment exclusively because of her long-term absences justified by her periods of maternity leave and pregnancy-related illness.
Official Journal of the European Union

Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

(Case T-724/16 P)

(2016/C 441/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission;

and, giving judgment itself:

— Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 refusing the requests for assistance;

— Order the Commission pay the amounts of EUR 22 000 to Mr Falcione and EUR 35 000 to Mr Cocchi, in respect of the damage which they have suffered;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellants’ interest in pursuing the proceedings. The appellants, it is claimed, have more than a mere administrative interest in having their appeal upheld.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/25

Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Starbucks and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea v Commission

(Case T-636/16)

(2016/C 462/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Starbucks Corp. (Seattle, Washington, United States) and Starbucks Manufacturing Emea BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Verschuur, M. Petite and M-A. Stroungi, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1-4 of the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 on State Aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks (‘the contested decision’);

— in the alternative, annul Article 2(1) of the contested decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of this procedure.

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 that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment when interpreting and applying the reference framework for purposes of assessing whether the APA confers a selective advantage.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 107(1) TFEU by incorrectly establishing that the APA conferred an advantage, thereby committing various manifest errors of fact and assessment, failing to conduct a diligent and impartial examination and giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) by wrongly quantifying the alleged aid, thereby committing a material error of law and a manifest error of assessment.

(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 462/26

Action brought on 30 September 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Ascendo Medienagentur (SLIMDYNAMICS)

(Case T-700/16)

(2016/C 462/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ascendo Medienagentur AG (Gamprin-Bendern, Liechtenstein)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘SLIMDYNAMICS’ — Application for registration No 12 882 304

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2016 in Joined Cases R 1814/2015-4 and R 1780/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision regarding the granting of goods in class 5 and reject EUTM No. 012882304 SLIM DYNAMICS & design in class 5; and

— order EUIPO and, in case it decides to intervene in the present proceedings, ASCENDO MEDIENAGENTUR AG, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/50

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)

(Case T-774/16)

(2017/C 006/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Consejo Regulador del Cava (Villafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des proprietaires (Tain L'Hermitage, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘CAVE DE TAIN’ – EU trade mark No 11 345 824

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 980/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it does not invalidate the Contested EUTM with regard to ‘sparkling wines with a registered designation of origin’;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law: divided into four parts, based on the illegality of the individual decisions. — The first part alleges infringement of acquired rights, breach of legitimate expectations, and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and of sound administration, in so far as each of the applicants decided to be accompanied by his or her family on delegation to the country concerned, proceeding on the assumption that school fees would be reimbursed in full. — The second part alleges infringement of the principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination, in so far as a system of supplementary reimbursement limited to a flat-rate payment of EUR 10 000, established independently of the specific situation of each delegation, amounts to treating different situations in an identical manner. — The third part alleges infringement of the rights of the child, and of the right to family life and the right to education, in so far as the EEAS imposes a heavy financial burden on certain households of officials or temporary agents, those families being then obliged to decide whether to bear that burden in order to provide their children with an education equivalent to that of the children of their colleagues, or to separate and provide such an education, at a lower cost, in one of the countries of the European Union. — The fourth part alleges that there has been no effective weighing-up of interests and that there has been a failure to observe the principle of proportionality in each adopted decision, particularly in so far as the defendant has failed to show that the objective pursued justified the infringement of the applicants’ fundamental rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/45

Action brought on 24 October 2016 — Toontrack Music v EUIPO (EZMIX)

(Case T-771/16)

(2017/C 014/53)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Toontrack Music AB (Umeå, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘EZMIX’ — Application for registration No 13 945 423

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2016 in Case R 2436/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in accordance with Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(2), 43 and 65 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark; and

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its own costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/51

Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)

(Case T-780/16)

(2017/C 006/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, (lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colour black, yellow and white, containing the word element ‘mediaexpert’ — EU trade mark No 11 674 132

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2583/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— annul the decision of Cancellation Division dated 29/10/2015 in application for a declaration of invalidity proceedings N 000009371 C;

— refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and invalidate European Union Trade Mark No 011674132 in respect of all the services covered;

— charge the EUIPO with the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/49

Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)

(Case T-817/16)

(2017/C 022/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Party applying for the mark: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;

— in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25;

— in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;

— infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;