ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 September 2020 — Ighoga Region 10 and Others v Commission

(Case T-582/20)

(2020/C 414/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Interessengemeinschaft der Hoteliers und Gastronomen Region 10 e.V. (Ighoga Region 10) (Ingolstadt, Germany), MJ and MK (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 28 April 2020 on State aid SA.48582 (2017/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid in favour of Maritim Group and KHI Immobilien GmbH (Ingolstadt);

— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of their procedural rights under Article 1(h) of Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) because the defendant refused to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU.

This single plea is divided into four parts as follows:

1. First, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group in connection with the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre and Hotel because — despite specific evidence calling into question the regularity of the tender for the operation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre, the defendant failed to carry out an independent assessment of this tender; — the defendant relied on an unlawful legal standard in the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms; — in addition, the defendant submitted an inappropriate criterion for the assessment of whether the leasing conditions were appropriate in market terms; and — finally, the defendant refused to use a suitable standard for the assessment of appropriateness in market terms.

2. Second, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties concerning the direct advantages in favour of Maritim Group, because the defendant completely ignored the complaint and consequently committed numerous factual errors of assessment.

3. Third, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties on account of the complete lack of any assessment of the subject matter of the complaint concerning alleged overcompensation of the Ingolstadt Congress Centre’s financing.

4. Fourth, the applicants allege unsurmountable serious difficulties following an incorrect assessment of the criterion of internationality for the purposes of the law on aid, because — the defendant assessed the application of the criteria in relation to the incorrect economic activity; — in so doing, it relied on an incorrect legal premiss; — it completely ignored the evidence in the complaint in support of its submissions that the criterion of internationality had been fulfilled; and — finally, it applied inappropriate and factually incorrect criteria.

(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).
Action brought on 30 September 2020 — MS v Commission

(Case T-602/20)

(2020/C 414/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MS (represented by: M. Medla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the form of the decision on the complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is directed against Decision PMO 4, TFT IN, 0425863600, of the European Commission, PMO — Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements, PMO 4 — Pensions and relations with former officials, of 3 December 2019, in the form of Decision HR.E.2/NX/sb/Ares of the European Commission, DG HR — Directorate General for Human Resources and Security, DIR E — Legal Affairs & Partnerships, Unit 2 — Appeals & Case Monitoring, of 30 June 2020, by which the applicant’s complaint against the contested decision was rejected.

The action is based on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (1) in conjunction with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the decision of the Administrative Committee of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2004 laying down general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

The applicant claims that the defendant incorrectly used as a basis for the calculation of the years of pensionable service to be credited the capital that was actually transferred and discounted by 3,9 % per annum to the day of the transfer application. According to the applicant, instead, the defendant should have used as a basis for this calculation the value, submitted by the national pension scheme provider, of the pension rights at the time of the transfer application. This would have led to a number of years of pensionable service to be credited that is over 20 % higher.

(1) Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I Volume 1959-1962, p. 135).
Action brought on 1 October 2020 — Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission

(Case T-614/20)

(2020/C 433/72)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Casino, Guichard-Perrachon (Saint-Étienne, France) (represented by: O. de Juvigny, A. Sunderland, I. Simic and G. Aubron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Decision C(2020) 5192 final of the European Commission of 23 July 2020;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, to the extent that it was adopted on the basis of documents obtained by the Commission during pre-inspections carried out on the basis of unlawful decisions, subject to applications for annulment in Cases T-249/17, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission, and T-538/19, Casino, Guichard-Perrachon v Commission.
7.

Seventh plea in law, by which the applicant refers to the remedies sought by him in the present case. — The applicant requests, as his principal claim, the performance of his contract, i.e. that he be allowed to enter into the service of the defendant with retroactive payment of his salary; — Alternatively, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages equivalent to the amount of the salary for the fixed-term agreed between the parties; — In any case, i.e. independently of whether the Court grants the applicant’s principal or alternative claim for a remedy, the applicant requests that he be awarded damages for various heads of losses suffered because of the defendant’s behaviour and illegal decisions.
Action brought on 6 November 2020 — Kerstens v Commission

(Case T-672/20)

(2021/C 9/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (La Forclaz, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision dated 20 January 2020 rejecting Mr Petrus Kerstens’ request for assistance D/517/19 of 17 September 2019 brought under Articles 24 and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

— annul the European Commission’s decision dated 31 January 2020 rejecting Mr Petrus Kerstens’ request for assistance D/516/19 of 17 September 2019 brought under Articles 24 and 12a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, by applying Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of good administration and infringement of the rights of the defence, and in particular the right to be heard arising from Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in that the applicant was not heard by the Commission prior to the decisions rejecting his requests for assistance.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)

(Case T-637/20)

(2020/C 443/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, 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: European Union word mark JUVÉDERM VOLITE –European Union trade mark No 13 413 406

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 in Case R 1015/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Schuhwaren)

(Case T-684/20)

(2021/C 19/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 457 113-0075

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 1649/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 November 2020 — Legero Schuhfabrik v EUIPO — Rieker Schuh (Schuhwaren)

(Case T-683/20)

(2021/C 19/72)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (Feldkirchen bei Graz, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rieker Schuh AG (Thayngen, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: Community design No 1 457 113-0405

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2020 in Case R 1648/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 5 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;
Action brought on 9 December 2020 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v NG

(Case T-721/20)

(2021/C 35/77)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer, and B. Mastantuono, acting as Agent)

Defendant: NG

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking the sum of EUR 141 094,80 in relation to Grant Agreement No 632 506 ‘Wireless Flexible sensor co-operation for structural health Diagnosis/prognosis’ under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Union, together with interest at the rate of 3,5 % set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, from 9 July 2019 until the date of actual payment;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law:

The defendant failed to fulfil its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse the amount relating to staff costs, held not to be eligible for funding. As a result, the applicant issued, on 23 May 2019, a debit note for the amount of EUR 141 094,80 already paid to Alpha Consulting Service Srl, in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. There is no doubt whatsoever in the present case as to the facts giving rise to the obligations incumbent on the defendant as shareholder and representative of Alpha Consulting Service Srl, which has been removed from the commercial register. The objections made by that company after the debit note was issued are generic, incomplete and not supported by evidence and, therefore, appear to be entirely unfounded. As a result, the applicant is entitled to seek recovery and reimbursement of the amount paid, plus default interest.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 November 2020 — Bimbo Donuts Iberia v EUIPO — Hijos de Antonio Juan (DONAS DULCESOL)

(Case T-697/20)

(2021/C 28/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo Donuts Iberia, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Ceballos Rodríguez and M.I. Robledo McClymont, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hijos de Antonio Juan, SL (Villalonga, Spain)

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: Application for word mark DONAS DULCESOL — Application for registration No 17 917 477

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2020 in Case R 514/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, if it take parts in the proceedings.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection as regards the reasoning for the contested measures, the lack of any genuine factual basis for the reasons given by the Council and infringement of the rights to freedom of expression, defence and property, in so far as the requirement to provide genuine evidence and the requirement to state reasons when extending the contested measures were not met, which affects the other rights.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (BANDIT)

(Case T-733/20)

(2021/C 44/82)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark BANDIT — EU trade mark No 1 205 061

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 in Case R 730/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 1 205 061 be re-established in accordance with his application;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to good administration and infringement of the rights of defence and of the principle of the presumption of innocence based on the culpably thoughtless conduct displayed by OLAF in its false accusations of the applicants before the French authorities, carried out by letter of 19 March 2003. The applicants take the view in that regard that: — OLAF displayed haste incompatible with the obligation to respect a reasonable period in providing the information to the French authorities on the day following the opening of the external investigation of the applicants; — OLAF should have given the applicants the same treatment as that given to European officials and waited until it had additional information available to it in order to take a better-informed decision; — OLAF should have taken the precaution of notifying the applicants in advance, in order to receive their explanations in the context of an adversarial exchange; — OLAF should not have used very strong phrases expressing the sentiment that the applicants were guilty of ‘looting’ to the detriment of community funds.
Action brought on 18 December 2020 — Grünig v Commission

(Case T-746/20)

(2021/C 53/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Grünig KG (Bad Kissingen, Germany) (represented by: Y. Melin and B. Vigneron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China in that the European Commission infringed Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union by imposing an anti-dumping duty in a discriminatory manner by granting an exemption on the basis of the customs procedure of end-use;

— order the European Commission and any parties intervening in support of the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21) in that the contested regulation, namely Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 315, p. 1) does not impose an anti-dumping duty on all imports found to be dumped and causing harm.

The applicant considers that the Commission imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of a product in a discriminatory manner, in breach of Article 9(5) of Regulation 2016/1036 referred to above, in that it provides for an exemption from the anti-dumping duty on the basis of the customs procedure of end-use. Consequently, the provision of Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 is unlawful and should be annulled.
—

The applicant submits in support of this plea that it cannot take advantage of its rights under Article 41(1) of the Charter, since no authority has examined its case. It is unable to act, since, first, national legislation does not provide for the possibility of bringing an appeal against the refusal of the President of the UOKiK to take legal action. Second, the Commission has abstained from examining the case, incorrectly finding that it has already been examined. As a result, the applicant has been denied a means to exercise its rights. The applicant specifies that the Commission failed to take into account all circumstances of the given case and failed to examine carefully the applicant’s situation. According to the applicant, the Commission should have investigated in detail whether the case was examined and how, and therefore should have carefully analysed the action taken by the national competition authority. The Commission failed to comply with this obligation and therefore failed to observe the duty of due diligence resulting from the right to good administration The Commission also failed to comply with the obligation stemming from Article 105(1) TFEU, since it failed to take into account the circumstance that in the event of its rejection of the complaint, a case involving potential infringement of the principle of competition would remain unresolved, since it was not examined by the national authority.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 December 2020 — Unite the Union v EUIPO — WWRD Ireland (WATERFORD)

(Case T-739/20)

(2021/C 62/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Unite the Union (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor and M. Hommé, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: WWRD Ireland IPCO LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

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: European Union word mark WATERFORD — European Union trade mark No 397 521

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 2683/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision in such a way as to find that the trade mark WATERFORD should be revoked within the terms of Article 58 EUTMR;

— order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed the following errors of assessment. First, it ruled out that the specific circumstances of employment of the assistant concerned could have an influence on the evidence of that assistant’s work. Next, it did not take account of the time that had elapsed since the facts and the resulting loss of evidence. Lastly, it did not make use of the evidence provided by the applicant.
1.

First plea in law, alleging failure adequately to state reasons. The applicant takes the view that the statement of reasons consists of literal assessments, which are not consistent with the grades awarded. Moreover, the selection board has not communicated the assessment criteria adopted before the tests, so that neither the applicant nor the appointing authority was able to check the legality of those criteria.