ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 274/23

Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Miettinen v Council

(Case T-395/13)

2013/C 274/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Council of 21 May 2013 refusing to grant full access to Document 12979/12 pursuant to 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), as communicated to the applicant on 21 May 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘06/c/02/1 3’ (the contested decision) as well as its renewed refusal of 23 July 2013;

Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 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 two pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) 2nd indent and Article 4(3) 1st subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the contested decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of the said provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the on-going decision-making process respectively:

Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of Document 12979/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process;

Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that Document 12979/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context;

Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in Document 12979/12 was already in the public domain when the contested decision was taken; and

Fourthly, the Council failed to apply the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) 1st subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test when invoking Article 4(2) 2nd indent.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfil its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/21

Action brought on 14 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-426/13)

2013/C 304/36

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1642/2012-1;

— Award the applicant the costs incurred by the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘AINHOA’ for services and goods in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the rights of the CTM proprietor in respect of services in Classes 35 and 39 and rejected the application for revocation in respect of ‘cosmetic products’ in Class 3

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1).

(1) OJ L 78, p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 298/8

Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-356/13 P)

2013/C 298/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

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 of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11 Lebedef v Commission, in respect of an application for annulment of the decision in disciplinary proceedings of 6 July 2010 downgrading the appellant by two grades in the same function group;

— grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

— make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal relating to paragraphs 35, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of the principle of prohibition of arbitrary action, since the Civil Service Tribunal distorted and misinterpreted the facts and misread and misinterpreted the application at first instance and the contested decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/30

Action brought on 19 August 2013 — IOC-UK v Council

(Case T-428/13)

2013/C 313/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Oil Company UK Ltd (IOC-UK) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, M. Gambardella, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08.06.2013, L156/10), amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 (OJ 08/06/2013 L156/3), implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant; and

— Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant submits seven grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing; insufficient statement of reasons; violation of the right of defence; manifest error of assessment; breach of the fundamental principle of proportionality; breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment and nondiscrimination; and breach of the fundamental right to property.

The Applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the Applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council has provided an insufficient statement of reasons. The Applicant's requests to expand on the statement of reasons, and for access to documents, have not as yet been replied to, apart from a brief letter acknowledging receipt. By these omissions, the Council has violated the right of defence of the Applicant, who has been denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings have been withheld from the Applicant. Moreover, the Council has not substantiated that indirect control of the Applicant by NIOC would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. In relation to the reasons given for its listing the Applicant considers these either insufficient or vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, taken overall, a comparison of the objectives of the listing decision and the practical impact of this decision for the Applicant demonstrates that the decision is disproportionate. Finally, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/32

Appeal brought on 17 July 2013 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v Commission

(Case T-373/13 P)

2013/C 325/54

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, D. Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2013 in Case F-87/12 Alsteens v European Commission

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on single plea in law, alleging error of law, as the CST held that annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of the appellant’s contract as a member of temporary staff would place him retroactively under the system of contracts of indefinite duration. The appellant argues that that is not the case and submits that the CST infringed his right to an effective judicial remedy in finding that he could not apply for partial annulment of the decision to limit the extension period of his contract, namely that part of the decision limiting the duration of the extension in time.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/67

Action brought on 2 October 2013 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-542/13)

2013/C 344/123

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J. Langer and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2013) 4474 final of 18 July 2013 on the non-application of certain provisions of the Decree of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of 8 June 2012 establishing detailed rules with regard to the liberalisation of international rail passenger transport;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission wrongly based the contested decision on Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. (1) The applicant argues that, if the Commission is not in agreement with the manner in which the Netherlands legislature implements the Directive, it may make use of Article 258 TFEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of loyal cooperation, following expiry of the ‘EU Pilot’, (2) in declaring Netherlands legislation inapplicable by virtue of Article 61 of Directive 2012/34/EU. The applicant argues that it was reasonably entitled to assume, when answering the Commission’s questions under ‘EU Pilot’, that the shared information would be used by the Commission exclusively in (the event of) infringement proceedings.

3. Third plea in law, alleging defective grounds and an incorrect interpretation of Directive 2012/34/EU in that it was held that the criteria for determining ‘the principal purpose of the service’, within the meaning of Article 10(3) of the Directive, may not be determined in advance, and in that it was held that it is for the regulatory body to set out the criteria for determining ‘economic equilibrium’ within the meaning of Article 11(2).

(1) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 32).

(2) See the communication of the Commission ‘A Europe of Results — Applying Community Law’ (COM(2007) 502 final).
—

annul notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/260/13, 261/13, 262/13, 263/13, 264/13, 265/13 and 266/13 to draw up reserve lists for the recruitment of Danish-language translators, English-language translators, French-language translators, Italian-language translators, Maltese-language translators, Dutch-language translators and Slovenian-language translators, published in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 199 A of 11 July 2013;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/21

Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Euromed v OHIM — DC Druck-Chemie (EUROSIL)

(Case T-524/13)

2013/C 352/40

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Euromed, SA (Mollet del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Druck-Chemie GmbH (Ammerbuch-Altingen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 1829/2012-1; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EUROSIL’ for certain goods in Class 1 — Community trade mark application No 8 540 049

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Community registration No 6 140 099 and the word mark ‘EUROSIL-85’ for goods in Class 5 — Spanish registration No 2 785 209

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/60

Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)

(Case T-494/13)

2013/C 344/111

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4;

— Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 820 313

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Inceda Holding

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/34

Action brought on 8 October 2013 Rosian Express v OHIM (Shape of a box)

(Case T-547/13)

2013/C 367/61

Language of the procedure: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Rosian Express Srl (Mediaș, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: three-dimensional mark representing the shape of a box, for goods and services in Classes 28 and 35

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Misinterpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 352/22

Action brought on 9 October 2013 — Abertis Telecom and Retevisión I v Commission

(Case T-541/13)

2013/C 352/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Abertis Telecom, SA (Barcelona, Spain) and Retevisión I, SA (Barcelona) (represented by: L. Cases Pallarés, J. Buendía Sierra, N. Ruiz García, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, M. Muñoz de Juan and M. Reverter Baquer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, in particular, Article 1 thereof, in so far as it declares there to be State aid incompatible with the internal market;

— consequently, annul the recovery orders set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the contested decision;

— order, by way of a measure of organisation of procedure, the Commission to produce the cost report submitted by ASTRA; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision in the present case is the same as that in Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.

The applicants raise the same pleas in support of their action as those raised in the aforecited case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/16

Action brought on 7 October 2013 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

(Case T-536/13)

2013/C 377/39

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, United States) (represented by: A. Meijboom, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Softkinetic Software SA (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 July 2013 given in Case R 2373/2011-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KINECT’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9 058 141

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SOFTKINETIC’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 38, 41 and 42 — International registration No 1 025 034 designating the European Union; the word mark ‘SOFTKINETIC’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28, 38, 41 and 42 — Benelux trade mark registration No 850 946

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal and annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(5) and 8(1)(b) CTMR.
—

The applicants claim that Article 296 TFEU was infringed, because the refusal to reduce the fine on the ground of inability to pay did not contain a substantiated statement of reasons, since there was no specific analysis of the requirements which, in accordance with the European Union’s decision-making practice (in particular under paragraph 35 of the Guidelines for setting fines pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1)‘the Guidelines’), and in accordance with the case-law of the European Union relating to inability to pay, must be verified for the purposes of granting a reduction of the fine in this context; nor were the arguments duly addressed, which had been adduced by COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE during the relevant proceeding before the European Commission, relating to the COMPANHIA PREVIDENTE group’s fulfilment of those requirements.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/34

Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Australian Gold v OHIM — Effect Management & Holding (HOT)

(Case T-611/13)

2014/C 24/63

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Australian Gold LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Effect Management & Holding GmbH (Vöcklabruck, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 1881/2012-4;

— Order the defendant and the other party before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the cost of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘HOT’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 16 and 25 — International registration designating the European Union No 797 277

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b)(c) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Granted the application for a declaration of invalidity in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a)(b)(c) and Article 8(3) CTMR.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging first, an infringement of the rights of the defence, to the extent that the appellant did not have the opportunity to make an argument during the procedure in front of the Civil Service Tribunal when the Civil Service Tribunal found that the appointing authority relied on a fifth implicit reason in its decision to reject the appellant’s application and, second, an error of law, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal undertook an analysis of the conditions laid down in Article 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union in its review of legality of the application of Article 24 of those Regulations (relating to paragraphs 94 and onwards in the judgment under appeal).