ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringements of Article 42 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, Clause 5.4 of the Revised Framework Agreement on parental leave following Council Directive 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC and repealing Directive 96/34/EC (OJ 2010 L 68, p. 13), Article 7 of Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on employee representation (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 29) and Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, failing to follow the disciplinary procedure.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the exceptions laid down in Article 4(2), first and third indents, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 were misapplied. — The applicant alleges in this regard that the defendant misapplied relevant case-law which, in its view, does not apply to cases in which the administrative file has been closed. Also, in State aid cases, there is a very strong public interest in obtaining as much information as possible in order to control State bodies and different considerations should also apply to arguments based on commercial interests than those which pertain in merger or cartel cases.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission incorrectly classified the Polish tax on the retail sector as State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU by reason of a manifest error in its assessment of the condition of selectivity.
—

Should the Court uphold the request set out in the previous paragraph, given that, according to the provisions of Recital 91 and the last subparagraph of Article 85(4) of the Directive, annulment of a decision of a resolution authority does not affect any subsequent administrative acts or transactions that are based on the annulled decision, order the SRB, pursuant to that article, and in accordance with Article 87(3) of the Regulation, to compensate the applicant for the loss incurred as a consequence of annulment of the decision referred to in the previous paragraph. To that effect, the loss incurred by the applicant is fixed at the actual value at the date of her payment of the sum of EUR 50 000 corresponding to the nominal value of the bond with a maturity date of 22 October 2020 issued by BPE Financiaciones S.A. under ISIN XS0550098569 which the applicant held at the date of the decision, plus the actual value at the date of her payment of interest at the annual fixed rate of 6,873 % which that bond would have accrued between 7 June 2017 (date of the decision) and 22 October 2020 (maturity date of that bond).
—

If that is not possible, declare in any event that the conversion of the bonds into shares is ineffective, maintaining bond-holders in the same position as they were in on 6 June 2017 and order the payment of compensation to shareholders by payment corresponding to the actual value of the bank and, accordingly, of the shares on 30 June 2016.
—

In the further alternative, in the event that the neither of the previous heads of claim is upheld, annul in part the decision, with respect to the valuation of the institution, the Court having to carry out, or order the carrying out of, a fair, actual and equitable valuation of the Banco Popular Español which implies the compensation of the applicants, as shareholders and creditors of that institution in accordance with the new valuation;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/37

Action brought on 8 August 2017 — Olarreaga Marques and Saralegui Reyzabal v SRB

(Case T-518/17)

(2017/C 374/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Gorka Olarreaga Marques (Madrid, Spain) and María-Aránzazu Saralegui Reyzabal (Madrid) (represented by: R. Jiménez Velasco, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board agreed of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/38

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Eleveté Invest Group and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-523/17)

(2017/C 374/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Eleveté Invest Group S.L. (Madrid, Spain) and 19 other applicants (represented by: B. Cremades Román, F. Orts Castro, J. López Useros, S. Cajal Martín and P. Marrodán Lázaro, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) and Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246, both adopted on 7 June 2017;

— Order SRB and the European Commission to pay damages to the applicants on grounds of non-contractual liability;

— Declare the invalidity of the valuation carried out by SRB’s independent expert and, following the calculation of the net value of the assets of Banco Popular, order SRB and the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicants;

— Order SRB and the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/52

Action brought on 15 September 2017 — Sárossy v Commission

(Case T-633/17)

(2017/C 382/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Róbert Sárossy (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: D. Lazar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 12 June 2017 relating to Ares (2017) 2929030;

— annul Commission Decision C(2017)5147 final of 17 July 2017;

— order the Commission to make all of the documents relating to EU Pilot Case 8572/15 (CHAP (2015)00353) accessible to the applicant, irrespective of whether they are already available or are to be made available only in the future; and

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

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

According to the applicant, there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the contested documents since making the documents available to the public would make it possible for:

— the economic interests of consumers to be protected;

— the internal market to be protected;

— the Commission’s investigation activity to be reviewed;

— democracy in Hungary to be strengthened; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/58

Action brought on 27 September 2017 — Maico Holding v EUIPO — Eico (Eico)

(Case T-668/17)

(2017/C 382/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Maico Holding GmbH (Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany) (represented by: T. Krüger and D. Deckers, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eico A/S (Brønderslev, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU trade mark application No 13 706 726

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017 in Case R 2089/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 July 2017, No R 2089/2016-4 Eico v Maico, and the opposition decision of 26 October 2016, No B 002528654, and amend them in such a way that the appeal and the opposition are upheld in their entirety;

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

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/53

Action brought on 2 October 2017 — Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO — BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda)

(Case T-683/17)

(2017/C 402/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Khadi and Village Industries Commission (Mumbai Maharashtra, India) (represented by: J. Guise, N. Rose, V. Ellis, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BNP Best Natural Products GmbH (Munich, Germany)

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 mark ‘Khadi Ayurveda’ — EU trade mark No 13 118 724

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 2086/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and find that the contested EUTM is invalid;

— make an award of costs in the favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— The Board of Appeal distorted the evidence;

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(g) and 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/46

Action brought on 22 September 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools (Spray gun for paint)

(Case T-651/17)

(2017/C 402/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design of a ‘spray gun for paint’; Community design No 1259626-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 July 2017 in Case R 914/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and — if applicable — Zhejiang Auarita Pneumatic Tools Co. Ltd to jointly and severely pay all the costs.

Pleas in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 13(4) and (5) of Directive 2010/75/EU, read in conjunction with Article 3(12) of that directive and Article 291(2) TFEU, by exceeding the entitlements which it is acknowledged as having in Article 13(5) of Directive 2010/75/EU, as a result of introducing derogations from the application of the BAT conclusions by means of the contested decision rather than by means of an amendment to Directive 2010/75/EU.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that INEA/Commission have exceeded their competence. INEA/Commission refused funding based on the reasoning that the Paldiski LNG terminal is no longer necessary for the Baltic Sea region’s security of supply of natural gas. Applicant finds that the effect of this statement is a substantial modification of a PCI list (Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 and Regulation (EU) No 2016/89. To do so, the Commission has to adopt a delegated regulation, not send a letter to the Applicant.
—

Declare that the Single Resolution Board has incurred non-contractual liability and order it to repair the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of both its actions and its omissions which deprived the applicant of the BANCO POPULAR ESPAÑOL, S.A. bonds and securities it owned;
—

In any event, order that the contract for the provision of services relating to the definitive valuation and the valuation referred to in Article 20(16) to (19) of Regulation No 806/2014 be awarded by means of a competitive selection procedure, in which the expert who carried out the provisional valuation of the Banco cannot participate, recognise the right to be heard of the parties adversely affected by the original act in the context of the ex post valuation, granting access to all the documents of the administrative procedure, and order that the applicant be awarded the maximum countervalue resulting from the ex post valuation and its payment by the Banco’s [Banco de Santander] contractor or, in the alternative, by SRB;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/21

Action brought on 13 October 2017 — Chioreanu v ERCEA

(Case T-717/17)

(2018/C 013/34)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Nicolae Chioreanu (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: D.-C. Rusu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision rejecting the application for review of Proposal No 741797-NIP, ERC-2016-ADG;

— order the European Research Council Executive Agency to review the research proposal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Commission Decision C(2015) 4975 on the European Research Council rules for submission of proposals and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures relevant to the specific programme of Horizon 2020.
—

Order that all the sums awarded to the applicants accrue compensatory interest as of 23 May 2017 (or, in the alternative, as of 7 June 2017) up to the date of the judgment and, additionally, default interest as of the date of the judgment, except for the costs resulting from the present proceedings, which will only accrue default interest as of the date of the judgment; and
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/55

Action brought on 20 November 2017 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)

(Case T-760/17)

(2018/C 022/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Meesenburg Großhandel KG (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Freiherr von Oldershausen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triotherm+’ — Application No 15 186 471

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 1786/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/58

Action brought on 20 November 2017 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)

(Case T-769/17)

(2018/C 022/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘ALPRAUSCH’ No 1 218 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 in Case R 1596/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/46

Action brought on 6 December 2017 — Mouldpro v EUIPO — Wenz Kunststoff (MOULDPRO)

(Case T-796/17)

(2018/C 032/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mouldpro ApS (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: W Rebernik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenz Kunststoff GmbH & Co. KG (Lüdenscheid, Germany)

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 mark ‘MOULDPRO’ — EU trade mark No 10 022 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2017 in Case R 2153/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Unlawful registration by an agent or representative, CTMR article 51(1)(b), in conjunction with article 8(3);

— Earlier non registered trademark rights used in the course of trade CTMR article 53(1)(c), in conjunction with article 8(4);
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law and in fact by applying the wrong test to determine whether the constituent elements of Article 107(1) TFEU were met and applied said (incorrect) test in breach of Article 107(1) TFEU; — the Commission’s finding that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU relies solely on the ‘point-to-point comparison’ test; — the Commission carried out its private investor test assessment after having already decided that there was an advantage for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU; — the Commission’s ‘point-to-point comparison’ test is incorrect as a matter of law; — the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment when carrying out its ‘point-to-point comparison’ test assessment, notably by not taking into account relevant information that was available to it at the time it adopted the Contested Decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 42/28

Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Hernando Avendaño and Others v SRB

(Case T-669/17)

(2018/C 042/41)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: María Hernando Avendaño (Madrid, Spain), Ignacio Ruiz-Rivas Hernando (Madrid), Juan Ruiz-Rivas Cuesta (Madrid), Lucía Ruiz-Rivas Cuesta (Madrid) (represented by: P. Gabeiras Vázquez, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— Declare the present action for annulment admissible, together with the evidence submitted and measures sought;

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08;

— Order the payment of compensation for the harm caused.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Agency committed manifest errors of assessment, by failing to evaluate all the relevant facts and circumstances, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants and by failing to take into account Article 25 of the REACH Regulation (1) — The applicants submit that the Agency committed a manifest error of assessment by failing to take into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the situation the contested decision is intended to govern, by concluding that the claimant made more efforts than the applicants, by failing to consider the specific facts of the dispute before it and by failing to take into account the applicants’ concerns regarding the duplication of vertebrate animal tests by the claimant, contrary to Article 25 of the REACH Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/39

Action brought on 15 December 2017 — Seco Belgium and Vinçotte v Parliament

(Case T-812/17)

(2018/C 052/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Seco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) and Vinçotte (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: A. Delvaux and R. Simar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the action for annulment admissible;

— annul the decision, the date of which is unknown, whereby the European Parliament decided to award Contract [06D20/2017/M005 — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels (OJ 2017/S 118-236114)] to [another tenderer];

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the ‘Technical specifications’ annex to the Tender Specification relating to Contract Notice 06D20/2017/M005 — Assignments to perform inspections and provide technical opinions in the context of construction works, projects and purchases at the European Parliament in Brussels (OJ 2017/S 118-236114), a manifest error of assessment, infringement of general principles of EU law, breach of the duties of care and scrutiny, infringement of the principles of equal treatment and transparency, failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons deriving from, inter alia, Article 113 of 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) and Article 161 of 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), infringement of the right to an effective remedy, and infringement of some of the provisions governing the award of the contract in question.