ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

The applicant puts forward that the Commission is not entitled to decline national support on grounds that are for the Polish administration to decide — because of the latters` close experience with the area. According to the applicant, the Commission is furthermore not entitled to decline on grounds that were known to it at the time of JYSK application. The ‘Scoreboard’ (Submeasure 4.5.2.) allegedly expresses exactly the goals and purposes in the OP IE and both were known to the Commission representative in the Monitoring Committee at the time of the JYSK application. The correct understanding/interpretation of the OP IE, so the applicant claims, shall take into account the specific knowledge of the Polish administration concerning work places and skills of workers in Radomsko, and it is not for the Commission to override in all details the assessment of the Polish administration when implementing the program, nor is it correct to consider any intention or ‘goal’ of the OP IE to be decisive as the Commission does. According to the applicant, the correct understanding of the OP IE and EU law shall be based upon the fact that some of the provisions are of greater importance than others — illustrated in the scoreboard (Submeasure 4.5.2.).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/64

Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)

(Case T-374/15)

(2015/C 302/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Baldham, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ — Community trade mark No 8 770 042

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 418/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

condemn the Council to pay the following sums to the applicant: — € 8 8 9 06 191 in respect of material damage up until the date of this claim; — € 8 7 13 285 in respect of interest on the sum in sub-paragraph (1) above plus daily interest of € 10 377 until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; — a daily rate of € 54 716 in respect of material damage from the date of this claim until the end of the Claim Period; — interest on the total sum calculated pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; — € 3 2 9 64 320 in respect of material damage from the date of the end of the Claim Period; — € 1 0 00 000 in respect of non-material damage; — post-judgment interest on the sums in sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of payment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of payment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; and — the Bank’s costs of this application;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/39

Action brought on 31 July 2015 — Inditex v OHIM — Ffauf (ZARA)

(Case T-432/15)

(2015/C 320/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Macias Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal, E. Armero, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ZARA’ — Community trade mark registration No 732 958

Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 867/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in particular regarding the revocation of the CTM registration No 732958 ‘ZARA’ for the challenged goods in classes 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs those incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 42(2), 51(1)(a), 52(2) and 85(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/30

Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Fakro v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristalería (climaVera)

(Case T-457/15)

(2015/C 328/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fakro Sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristalería, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘climaVera’ — Community trade mark No 1 152 1366

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 2095/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision in its entirety and refer the case back to OHIM for reconsideration;

— award the costs of the proceedings and representation to the applicant in accordance with the prescribed rules.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/17

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Seimora)

(Case T-426/15)

(2015/C 328/17)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community plant variety right at issue: Community variety EU 8536 ‘SEIMORA’

Procedure before the CPVO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A002/2014

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law and distortion of the facts and evidence, as well as infringement of the right of the defence, in so far as the assessment of the appellant’s merits was not performed carefully and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.
8.

Eighth plea in law: Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, owing to the general failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons In that regard, the applicants complain that the Commission incorrectly describes the methodology of the aid measures, for example by assuming an investment aid rather than an operating aid and by generally mixing the various elements. Furthermore, the Commission does not determine the total amount of the aid measures and does not sufficiently assess a possible accumulation. The applicants take the view that the reasons given for the acceptance of a common interest or of a market failure and the appropriateness of the aid package do not generally satisfy the requirements as to the statement of reasons.
—

Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/29

Action brought on 29 July 2015 — Systran v Commission

(Case T-421/15)

(2015/C 337/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Systran SA (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Hoss, E. Omes and P. Hoffmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the present case with Case T-481/13;

— annul the decision of 25 June 2015 taken by the European Commission, alternatively, by the European Union;

— order the European Commission and the European Union to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision by which, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 April 2013 in Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C-103/11 P, ECR, EU:C:2013:245), it orders the recovery of compensatory interest, plus interest on late payment from 19 August 2013, on the amount that the Commission had paid to the applicant by way of damages following the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission (T-19/07, ECR, EU:T:2010:526), annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in the context of Case T-481/13, Systran v Commission (1).

(1) OJ 2013, C 336, p. 27.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/42

Action brought on 31 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

(Case T-500/15)

(2015/C 354/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY PRO’ — Application for registration No 9 125 071

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1940/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/47

Action brought on 4 September 2015 — Sun Cali v OHIM — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)

(Case T-512/15)

(2015/C 354/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SUN CALI’ — Community trade mark No 5 482 369

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and order the (potential) intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— set a date for an oral hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an oral hearing.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in Case T-1260/2014-5;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/29

Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

(Case T-508/15)

(2015/C 371/32)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, M. Palionis and A. Petrauskaitė, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania and relates to the Scheme for early retirement from agricultural commodities production (budget item: 6711);

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law:

By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, because:

(1) Without taking into account the nature of the infringement and the financial damage caused to the European Union, the Commission applied a flat-rate correction, although the information presented following the ex-post verification of all applications, carried out by Lithuania in an appropriate and reasonable manner, made it possible to determine with precision the financial damage actually caused to the European Union. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania asserts that the ex-post verifications carried out by the Lithuanian authorities are an appropriate means of determining the actual damage to the funds, because: — the criteria chosen for the verifications are consistent with the concept of agricultural commodities production; — the Commission wrongly linked the concept of agricultural commodities production with the concept of semi-subsistence farms; — the Commission failed to take into account the objectives of the Republic of Lithuania and the measures which were set out clearly in the rural development programme documents.

(2) In any event, the Commission misapplied the excessive 5 % financial correction, since the application of that correction is provided for solely when the risk of loss to the EU budget is significant, whereas the verifications carried out and the information presented by the Republic of Lithuania proved that only a small financial risk to the EU budget could have arisen.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).
—

annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure ECHA/2014/86 communicated to the applicants in its letter of 25 June 2014, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another consortium;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/52

Action brought on 22 September 2015 — Guiral Broto v OHIM — Gastro & Soul (Cafe Del Sol)

(Case T-549/15)

(2015/C 381/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘CAFE DEL SOL’ — Application for registration No 6 104 608

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2015 in Case R 1888/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and allow the opposition based on the earlier mark held by Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification.

— Rule that the opposition is upheld, confirming the decision of the Opposition Division refusing the application for the Community trade mark No 006104608 CAFE DEL SOL in respect of ‘provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation and catering’, in Class 43 of the International Classification, requested by the German commercial company Gastro & Soul GmbH, or if the Court should not have jurisdiction in that respect, to refer the matter back to a Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, with the direction to uphold the opposition.

— In respect of the evidence, in addition to the evidence in the administrative proceedings, the documents accompanying the present application be held to have been produced, that is documents numbers 1 to 4, as specified in the list of documents annexed to the application.

Plea in law

The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-548/15.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 398/66

Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Excalibur City v OHIM — Ferrero (MERLIN'S KINDERWELT)

(Case T-565/15)

(2015/C 398/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Excalibur City s.r.o. (Znojmo, Czech Republic) (represented by: E. EnginDeniz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘MERLIN'S KINDERWELT’ – Application for registration No 1 1 2 01 969

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2015 in Case R 1538/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in whole the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the fees and costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

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

As regards the question of the European Union’s non-contractual liability 1. First plea in law, alleging that the conduct of which the Council is accused (adoption and maintenance of measure freezing the applicant’s funds) is unlawful, as established by judgment of 6 September 2013 in Bank Refah Kargaran v Council, T-24/11, ECR, EU:T:2013:403. 2. Second plea in law, alleging that the unlawful act committed by the Council is a sufficiently serious breach of rules of law intended to confer rights on individuals.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1094/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council — There is no decision lawfully adopted by the defendant concerning the validity and appropriateness of opening an investigation; — Decision EIOPA-14-267 of the President of 6 June 2014 was adopted without the conditions laid down in Article 39(1)(2) and (3) of the regulation being fulfilled; — The reasons for decision EIOPA-14-267 of the President of 6 June 2014 are not connected to the appropriateness of starting an investigation, being in reality concerned with the procedural means available to the applicant against the decision of the Italian national authority.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/41

Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)

(Case T-585/15)

(2015/C 406/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GREEN BEANS’ — Application for registration No 11 410 801

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2015 in Case R 3002/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Applicant’s Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1530/2013-1;

— order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/43

Action brought on 3 November 2015 — Chic Investments v OHIM (eSMOKINGWORLD)

(Case T-617/15)

(2016/C 016/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Chic Investments sp. z o.o. (Poznań, Poland) (represented by: K. Jarosiński, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘eSMOKINGWORLD’ — Application for registration No 12 581 741

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2015 in Case R 3227/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 June 2015;

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

Pleas in law

— Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;