ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 101, 102 and 105 TFEU on the ground that, according to the applicant, one of the Commission’s tasks is specifically to investigate, of its own motion, breaches of the principles laid down in those articles. The applicant takes the view that the body to which the complaint relates can only be regarded as an undertaking and concludes from this that EU competition rules therefore apply to it. The applicant concludes that the monopolistic position of the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse (CNAV) and its associated bodies is unlawful.
—

annul the Commission decision of 8 June 2021 implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice of 31 January 2019 (Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P), according to which the applicant is not eligible to implement Union funds under indirect management as an international organisation pursuant to the applicable financial rules;
—

declare that Article 4(1) of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (as amended) and Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 (as amended) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant by reason of illegality, and consequently annul, insofar as they apply to the Applicant, the Contested Acts.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (Body-Star)

(Case T-599/21)

(2021/C 452/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Body-Star — EU trade mark No 17 711 748

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2021 in Case R 1712/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 8 September 2021 — HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission

(Case T-561/21)

(2021/C 431/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: HSBC Holdings plc (London, United Kingdom), HSBC Bank plc (London), HSBC Continental Europe (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Demetriou and D. Bailey, Barristers, M. Simpson, Solicitor, C. Angeli, M. Giner Asins and C. Chevreste, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 1 of the Commission decision C(2021) 4600 final of 28 June 2021, notified on 29 June 2021 (‘the Contested Decision’) amending Commission decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7. December 2016 (the ‘2016 Decision’) (AT.39914 — Euro Interest Rate Derivatives (‘EIRDs’)) and Article 2(b) of the 2016 Decision;

— in the alternative, substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicants to such amount as the Court may deem appropriate; and

— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs or, in the alternative, an appropriate proportion of the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision was adopted outside the limitation period of 10 years that ran from the end of the infringement on 27 March 2007. The defendant’s power to re-impose a fine on the applicants was accordingly time-barred.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and/or its assessment when it calculated the applicants’ value of sales on the basis of discounted cash receipts. The applicants allege that discounted cash receipts are an arbitrary and inappropriate measure of the value of sales in the Euro Interest Rate Derivatives sector. In particular, discounted cash receipts do not reflect either the economic significance of the infringement or the size of HSBC’s contribution to it.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment and/or gave inadequate reasons for the rate of the reduction factor that it used to calculate the applicants’ discounted cash receipts.

4. Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in its assessment of the gravity of the applicants’ infringement and the imposition and size of the additional amount.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the fine imposed on the applicants is disproportionately high. In particular, the applicants claim that the defendant erred in its assessment of the mitigating circumstances that relate to the applicants’ infringement. The applicants further allege that the defendant gave insufficient weight to the fact that the applicants’ participation in the single continuous infringement was both less extensive and less serious than found by the 2016 Decision as held by the General Court in Case T-105/17 HSBC v Commission. (1) Accordingly, the applicants request the Court to set a much lower fine that fairly reflects what the applicants did.

(1) Judgment of 24 September 2019, HSBC Holdings and Others v Commission, T-105/17, EU:T:2019:675.
Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-605/21)

(2021/C 471/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/61 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 89034 x MIR162 x NK603 and its sub-combinations in the EU;

— order any other measure deemed appropriate; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with exposure to drought conditions and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under drought conditions to be conducted.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under conditions of repeated and/or high application of herbicide.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on plant composition and agronomic characteristics in combination with exposure to drought conditions and herbicide applications.

(1) OJ 2021 L 26, p. 12.

(2) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Guangdong Camel Apparel v EUIPO — Worldwide Brands (CAMEL CROWN)

(Case T-590/21)

(2021/C 462/65)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guangdong Camel Apparel Co. Ltd (Foshan City, China) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and F. Codevelle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Brands, Inc. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark CAMEL CROWN — Application for registration No 17 882 201

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 159/2020-5 and R 184/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 October 2021 — bet-at-home.com Entertainment v EUIPO (bet-at-home)

(Case T-640/21)

(2021/C 471/90)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: bet-at-home.com Entertainment GmbH (Linz, Austria) (Prozessbevollmächtigter: represented by: R. Paulitsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark bet-at-home in the colours dark blue and green — Application No 18 157 957

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 August 2021 in Case R 2143/2020-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision so that the figurative mark bet-at-home is accepted for registration also in Class 41 (Entertainment);

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

Pleas in law

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

The statement of reasons for including the applicant on the lists annexed to the contested measures does not meet the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU. It is vague and insufficiently precise. First, it is not clear from the statement of reasons what State support the applicant supposedly received for the development of the Bremino-Orsha special economic zone. The statement of reasons relating to the grant of ‘a number of financial and tax advantages and other benefits’ in favour of the applicant is also unclear since it is not possible to understand which advantages are meant. The claim that the shareholders of Bremino-Grupp OOO are ‘the owners of Bremino-Orsha’ is simply false because it is legally impossible to be the owner of an economic zone. Furthermore, the allegation that all three of the applicant’s shareholders belong to the ‘inner circle of Lukashenka-related businessmen’ is too general and cannot constitute sufficient grounds for the imposition of sanctions.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 September 2021 — Pharmadom v EUIPO — Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE)

(Case T-601/21)

(2021/C 481/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmadom (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: M.-P. Dauquaire, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. (Rockville, Maryland, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WELLMONDE — Application for registration No 16 152 803

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Case R 1776/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

Plea in law
Action brought on 25 October 2021 — LW Capital v Commission

(Case T-690/21)

(2021/C 513/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: LW Capital (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Ziegler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the Commission’s Decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — [2020 reform of support for cogeneration] (Reform of the German Combined Heat and Power Generation Act 2020 (‘KWKG’)) and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants 2019 (§ 13 KWKG) (OJ 2021 C 306, pp. 1 and 2), to the extent that it does not raise concerns in respect of (i) the support of CHP electricity generation in new, modernised and retrofitted high-efficiency CHP installations and (ii) the support of CHP electricity generation in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector;

— order the Commission to bear its own costs and, in addition, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

By its single plea, the applicant challenges the decision at issue for ‘infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application’ within the meaning of the fourth paragraph read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU. That infringement consists in the fact that the Commission should have had concerns in relation to the compatibility of the KWKG 2020 aid scheme proposed by Germany and would therefore have been under an obligation to open the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 108(2) TFEU. As the Commission failed to act, it infringed the procedural rights of the applicant.

The applicant alleges the infringement of procedural rights under Article 108(2) in conjunction with the infringement of Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and infringements of the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and legitimate expectations, as well as an error of assessment of the facts.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 October 2021 — H/2 Credit Manager v EUIPO — Hcapital Partners SCR (H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS)

(Case T-656/21)

(2021/C 502/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: H/2 Credit Manager LP (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister-at-Law, and J. Bittner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hcapital Partners SCR, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

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 word mark H/2 CAPITAL PARTNERS — Application for registration No 17 599 374

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 July 2021 in Case R 1954/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party (if it takes part in these proceedings) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The Board of Appeal wrongly held that the relevant public included the general public;
Action brought on 8 November 2021 — ICA Traffic v Commission

(Case T-717/21)

(2022/C 2/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ICA Traffic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig and C. Vogt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision in so far as the framework agreement with UVD Robots APS concerning delivery of up to 200 disinfection robots ceased to have effect when the maximum quantity was reached;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The decision of the European Commission, notified in the press release of 21 September 2021, to procure a further 100 robots despite the fact that the framework agreement has ceased to have effect infringes the principle of legality under EU law, enshrined in primary law in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in conjunction with Article 264 TFEU.

In Case C-23/20, (1) the European Court of Justice ruled that once the maximum quantity specified in the contract notice was reached, the framework agreement ceased to have effect. The decision of the European Commission to now order a further 100 disinfection robots, on the basis of the framework agreement with UVD Robots APS concerning delivery of up to 200 disinfection robots, infringes Article 49 of Directive 2014/24/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and also Annex V, Part C, points 7, 8 and 10(a) in conjunction with Article 33 thereof and the principles of equal treatment and transparency set out in Article 18(1) of that directive.

(1) Judgment of 17 June 2021, Simonsen & Weel, C-23/20, EU:C:2021:490.

(2) OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 October 2021 — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik v EUIPO — aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik (aTmos)

(Case T-694/21)

(2022/C 2/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl and S. Pilgram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: aTmos Industrielle Lüftungstechnik GmbH (Riedstadt, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘aTmos’ — European Union trade mark No 12 285 649

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2021 in Case R 1844/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

by claiming that the pension rights the transfer of which she has applied for would have been acquired after her entry into the service of the Union, because her participation with the Algemeen Burgerlijk Pensioen-Fonds (ABP) ended on 31 January 2015, without making any distinction between the periods from 1 July 1992 to 31 December 2010 and from 1 January 2011 to 31 January 2015, the Commission ignored a period of eighteen years and six months of transferable pension rights, therefore erring in the assessment of the facts and breaching Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
—

order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in respect of both material and non-material damage, corresponding to: — the difference in remuneration between that currently received by a person in grade AST 1, step 3, and that of a person in grade AST 3, step 1, calculated over a period of five years, from the date of the adverse effect, namely 1 January 2021, taking account of a loss of opportunity estimated at 75 %; — the difference in pension rights between those currently acquired by a person in grade AST 1, step 3, and those of a person in grade AST 3, step 1, calculated over the same five-year period, from the date of the adverse effect, namely 1 January 2021, taking account of a loss of opportunity estimated at 75 %; — an amount of EUR 7 500 for the non-material damage caused; — a provisional amount of EUR 1.00 for loss of cover under the sickness fund;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging breach of the rules governing the application of the Treaties, on the following grounds: the amendment was treated as a standard amendment, even though it should be identified as a ‘Union’ amendment under Article 14(1)(c) and (d) and related provisions (inter alia, Articles 15, 17 and 55) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018 and Article 6 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/34; (3) the publication at issue infringes the general principle of truthfulness, as regards optional labelling, arising from the requirement that the smaller geographical unit must be in the municipality of Requena, and the right of the consumer to be able to identify the origin of the product (Article 120 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 55(1) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018); the publication at issue infringes the rights acquired by the winemakers through almost 40 years of continuous use of the name CAVA DE REQUENA and the legal rules protecting those rights (Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Spain No 1893/1989 and enforcement decisions of 1991), and infringes Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 of 17 October 2018, Article 40 of which, by reference to Article 119 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, makes it compulsory to indicate the provenance on the label, since it is not sufficient merely to indicate a postal code, contrary to what the Commission has alleged; the publication at issue infringes the principle of equal treatment vis-à-vis other producers of CAVA which have a smaller geographical unit and are able to indicate the geographical origin of the product to the consumer; the publication at issue infringes the Court’s case-law on market access developed in the context of the free movement of goods (Article 34 et seq. TFEU) and allows the cumulative effect of demand in the CAVA market, which infringes Article 101 TFEU.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 November 2021 — The Chord Company v EUIPO — AVSL Group (CHORD)

(Case T-734/21)

(2022/C 37/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Chord Company Ltd (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AVSL Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

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 CHORD — European Union trade mark No 8 254 229

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 in Case R 1664/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant for the General Court, appeal and the cancellation proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;