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

Action brought on 2 January 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)

(Case T-4/19)

(2019/C 72/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hankintatukku Arno Latvus Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Triaz Group GmbH (Freiburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark VIVANIA — European Union trade mark No 11 637 121

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2018 in Case R 767/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the request for declaration of invalidity of European Union trade mark No 11 637 121 ‘VIVANIA’;

— order EUIPO and the other party before the Board of Appeal to bear the applicant’s costs in the present procedure.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 15 January 2019 — Idea Groupe v EUIPO — The Logistical Approach (Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there)

(Case T-29/19)

(2019/C 93/95)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Idea Groupe (Montoir de Bretagne, France) (represented by: P. Langlais, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Logistical Approach BV (Uden, Netherlands)

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 EU figurative mark Idealogistic Verhoeven Greatest care in getting it there in the colours black, white and shades of blue — Application for registration No 14 567 184

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 November 2018 in Case R 2064/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs;

— order the company The Logistical Approach B.V to pay the costs occasioned by its intervention, should it intervene.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Apostolopoulou and Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki v Commission

(Case T-81/19)

(2019/C 112/60)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicants: Zoe Apostolopoulou and Anastasia Apostolopoulou-Chrysanthaki (Athens, Greece) (represented by: D. Gouskos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— join for judgment their present action with their related action of 25 October 2018, registered as Case Τ–721/18;

— uphold the action and order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay to each of the applicants the total sum of one million one hundred thousand euros, as fianancial compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicants because of the attack on their character, as that sum is broken down in their pleadings;

— order the defendants to refrain in future from any attack on the character of the applicants;

— order the first named defendant to restore the honour and reputation of the applicants by means of its declaration;

— order the defendants to pay the general costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the European Commission and the European Union. Given that the latter is always represented before the General Court by the institution to which the contested act or conduct is attributed, the Commission is consequently called as the only defendant to this action.

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. The first plea in law is based on an infringement of the requirement of truth and equity in proceedings, infringement of the fundamental general principle of the fair administration of justice and infringement of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.

2. The second plea in law is based on an infringement of the human dignity and the character of the applicants and an infringement of the principle of sound administration.
Action brought on 23 January 2019 — Dansk Erhverv v Commission

(Case T-47/19)

(2019/C 103/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dansk Erhverv (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: T. Mygind, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission decision C(2018) 6315 final of 4 October 2018 concerning State aid SA.44865 (2016/FC) — Germany — Alleged State aid to German beverage border shops;

— order the 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 that the Commission violated the applicant’s procedural rights as an interested party pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Articles 4(4), 12(1) and 24(1) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) by failing to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU despite the serious difficulties arising in the assessment of the state aid issues addressed in the complaint related to the administrative ‘export declaration’ practice and in particular to the relief of the obligation for the Border Shops to charge a deposit and thereby pay the deposit VAT, as well as a relief of fines for violations of the deposit charging obligations under the German canned beverages deposit scheme. The Commission therefore committed errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts, first, as concerns the compatibility of the ‘export declaration’ practice with Germany’s obligations pursuant to Article 4(3) TFEU, the Packaging Directive (2) and the polluter-pays principle, and with the deposit charging requirements pursuant to the applicable German Packaging Ordonnance. Secondly, the Commission erred with respect to the State aid effects of the VAT revenue foregone by Germany as a result of the ‘export declaration’ practice.

(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 L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9.

(2) Directive (EU) 2018/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 150, 14.6.2018, p. 141.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (robodealer)

(Case T-89/19)

(2019/C 139/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (robodealer) — Application for registration No 15 225 212

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1058/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the defendant’s contractual commitments to the applicant, in that the Commission failed to comply with the undertaking it had given by appointing the applicant as the European Union facilitator for the Congo Basin Forests Partnership.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AIdealer)

(Case T-97/19)

(2019/C 139/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark AIdealer — Application for registration No 15 216 765

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1063/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 February 2019 — Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)

(Case T-104/19)

(2019/C 139/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: G. Paricheva, 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 — European Union trade mark No 5 807 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 in Case R 2630/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant for annulment at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of these proceedings.

Plea in law
Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-59/19)

(2019/C 139/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

— Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

— Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.

The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and his right to respect for his reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting in damage to his reputation, suffered following his inclusion in the sanction list, in respect of which he is entitled to compensation.

The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo and repealing Common Position 2008/369/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 336, p. 30) and Article 2b(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2005 L 193, p. 1) are inapplicable. In that regard, the applicant submits that the legal criterion, as defined in those articles, on which the inclusion of the applicant’s name on the lists at issue is based, infringes the principle of the foreseeability of Union acts and the principle of proportionality in so far as it confers arbitrary and discretionary power on the Council.
Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Tempus Energy Germany and T Energy Sweden/Commission

(Case T-167/19)

(2019/C 155/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tempus Energy Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany), T Energy Sweden AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision dated 7 February 2018 relating to the planned Polish Capacity Mechanism (SA.46100, C(2018) 601 final) (1);

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that, by failing to initiate the formal investigation procedure following the notification of the planned Polish capacity mechanism, the Commission violated Article 108(2) TFEU, Articles 4(4) and 6(1) of Regulation 2015/1589 (2), together with the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations and made a wrong assessment of the facts. The Commission had not succeeded in overcoming the doubts that it must have encountered during the preliminary examination phase and this affected the applicants’ procedural rights.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide adequate reasoning in the contested decision, in breach of Article 296 TFEU.

(1) OJ 2018, C 462, p. 1

(2) 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 (codification), OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p.9.
Action brought on 25 February 2019 — Necci v Commission

(Case T-129/19)

(2019/C 155/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Claudio Necci (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 18 April 2018 rejecting his application for membership of the JSIS;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and one alternative plea in law.

Primarily, he claims that the European Commission infringed Article 95 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (‘the CEOS’) by refusing to admit him as a member of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS), without taking into account the additional contribution period granted to him in the pension scheme of the institutions of the Union in consideration for the transfer of his national pension rights.

In the alternative, the applicant raises an objection of illegality in respect of Article 95 of the CEOS having regard to Article 45 of the TFEU.
Action brought on 4 March 2019 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council

(Case T-141/19)

(2019/C 148/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Peter Sabo (Tulčik, Slovakia) and six other applicants (represented by: R. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should declare void those provisions of the Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) that allow for energy from forest biomass to count towards the Article 29(1) purposes: namely (a) contributing towards the Collective Target for 2030; (b) measuring compliance with renewable energy obligations, and (c) eligibility for financial support.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates Art 191 TFEU because it fails to preserve, protect or improve the quality of the environment, to protect human health, or to use natural resources prudently or rationally. It does not aim at a high level of environmental protection, it fails to rectify damage at source and fails to apply the precautionary principle or make the polluter pay. It also ignores available scientific data on the climate change impacts of burning forest biomass.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Directive 2018/2001 violates numerous rights of the applicants (recognized by Articles 7, 10, 14, 17, 22, 24, 35 and 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) that are universal and must be respected for both EU and non-EU applicants. These infringements cannot possibly be justified, because the infringing provisions of the contested Directive are not necessary or rationally connected to the environmental protection objectives of the Union, to which they run contrary.

(1) Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

(Case T-162/19)

(2019/C 172/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain), and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

— annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

— order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-161/19, Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of defence and to a fair trial. In that regard, the applicant submits, based on Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the Court’s case-law, that he should have been heard before the Council adopted the restrictive measures against him and that, accordingly, the applicant’s rights of defence were not observed.
1.

First plea in law: the applicant raises a plea under Article 277 TFEU concerning the invalidity of Article 16 of Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on fluorinated greenhouse gases and repealing Regulation (EC) No 842/2006, the contested decision being founded on that article, to the extent to which it bases the system of apportionment of quotas on reference values resulting from the historically-declared data in relation to F-gases placed on the market from 2009 to 2012, since that constitutes a discriminatory and arbitrary division of undertakings according to their historical activity on the market for gases, and it submits that the contested decision is therefore flawed in that regard.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2019 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)

(Case T-192/19)

(2019/C 206/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark goclean — EU trade mark No 13 270 046

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2019 in Case R 991/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and alter the contested decision; and, consequently,

— recognise the validity of EU trade mark No 13270046 ‘goclean’, registered on 9 February 2013, in respect of all or some of the goods in Class 11 (Flushing tanks for toilets; Toilet bowls; Water distribution installations);

— order EUIPO and/or the applicant Ceramica Cielo S.p.A. to pay Ceramica Flaminia S.p.A.’s costs relating to the present proceedings as well as the two previous stages before the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Interpretation of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Unfounded classification of the mark as a slogan;

— Infringement and misapplication of Article 95(1) in conjunction with Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;