ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

Annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/302 of 24 February 2022 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492, as amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776, on imports of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics (‘GFF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the PRC’) to imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not, and terminating the investigation concerning possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 on imports of GFF originating in Egypt by imports of GFF consigned from Morocco, whether declared as originating in Morocco or not (1) (the ‘Contested Regulation’), as far as it applies to the applicant; and
Action brought on 30 March 2022 — Seifert v Council

(Case T-166/22)

(2022/C 222/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Evgenia Seifert (Munich, Germany) (represented by: T. Seifert, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 1(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine;

— order the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings including expenses necessarily incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, Article 1(9) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/328 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, (1) discriminates against her on grounds of her origin as a Russian national and, therefore, infringes Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms read in conjunction with her rights enshrined in Article 8(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that respect, the Council cannot rely on a time of emergency under Article 15(1) of that convention and on a derogation within the meaning of Article 15(3) of that convention.

(1) OJ 2022 L 49, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 April 2022 — Pharmaselect International v EUIPO — OmniActive Health Technologies (LUTAMAX)

(Case T-221/22)

(2022/C 237/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pharmaselect International Beteiligungs GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Jackermeier and D. Wiedemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd (Mumbai, India)

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 LUTAMAX — European Union trade mark No 3 472 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2022 in Joined Cases R 524/2021-1 and R 649/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that European Union trademark No 3 472 974 LUTAMAX remain registered for the following goods: Class 5: Medicines for human and animals use; Dietetic substances adapted for medical use; Dietary supplements adapted for medical or dietetic use; Vitamin preparations adapted for medical or dietetic use; Eye care preparations (for pharmaceutical purposes); none of the aforesaid goods for veterinary purposes; Class 29: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 29); Edible oils and fats; Class 30: Dietetic foodstuffs and food supplements, not adapted for medical use (included in class 30);

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

Plea in law
Action brought on 19 April 2022 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-208/22)

(2022/C 237/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kinda Makhlouf (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: G. Karouni and K. Assogba, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul, in so far as those acts concern the applicant, — Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2022/242 of 21 February 2022 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its Annex I; — Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/237 of 21 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and its Annex II;

— order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 50 000 in damages to compensate all forms of loss;

Under Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the costs. Ms Kinda Makhlouf requests that the Council be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by her, of which supporting evidence can be shown during proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-206/22, Makhlouf v Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 April 2022 — Usmanov v Council

(Case T-237/22)

(2022/C 257/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alisher Usmanov (Tashkent, Uzbekistan) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

principally:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022; (3)

— annul Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; (4) in the alternative,

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022, in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022, in so far as it concerns Mr Usmanov;

— annul Article 1(2)(f) and (g) of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022;

— annul Article 1(1)(f) and (g) of Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022; and in any event,

— order the Council of the European Union to pay Mr Usmanov the sum of EUR 20,000 under Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court for the costs he has incurred in defending his interests.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 59, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 58, p. 1).

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/329 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 50, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2022/330 of 25 February 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 51, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Council in including the applicant’s name in the annexes to the Contested Acts. — The Council’s reasons for listing the applicant are materially flawed. — The Council fails to identify the individual, specific and concrete reasons why restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant, and the reasons relied on are not sufficiently detailed, contrary to the Council’s obligations. — The evidence provided is insufficient to establish a qualified link between the applicant and the applicant’s husband, with the element of ‘association’ under the Contested Acts requiring a nexus going beyond a mere family relationship.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2022 — Crush Series Publishing v EUIPO — Mediaproduccion (The Crush Series)

(Case T-295/22)

(2022/C 257/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Crush Series Publishing s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: D.-M. Belciu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediaproduccion SLU (Barcelona, Spain)

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 The Crush Series — Application for registration No 18 119 385

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2022 in Case R 1303/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition and allow the European Union trade mark application ‘The Crush Series’, No 18 119 385 to proceed to registration;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
1.

First plea in law, alleging Article 29 of the TEU and Article 215 of the TFUE do not provide a lawful basis for the contested decision and the contested regulation, respectively, and/or the defendant acted outside its competence as enshrined the Treaties, in particular Title V of the TEU.
—

The applicant refers, in that regard, to the power not to promote an official, which the Commission certainly has so that it can carry out impartial comparative assessments of merits, but which was misused in this instance in order to penalise the applicant for a scientific presentation in the field of nuclear energy given by him in 2021; he alleges that due approval for the presentation had been given in advance and that it was greatly appreciated by those who attended, but that it was subsequently met with disapproval from a high-ranking official from another Directorate-General and that that official had on previous occasions engaged in inappropriate verbal conduct with the applicant.
Action brought on 17 May 2022 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-279/22)

(2022/C 284/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission of 13 May 2022 C(2022) 3252 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl fumarate Mylan — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.

2. Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).
1.

First plea, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the obligation to give reasons. The applicant claims, first, that the Council does not cite individual, specific and concrete reasons capable of sufficiently indicating to him whether the restrictive measures taken against him are well founded. He takes the view that the contested acts rest on an unsound factual basis and on grounds that are unsubstantiated and plausible only in the abstract. The applicant then takes the view that the Council is requiring him to prove that there is no general case against him, implying a reversal of the burden of proof, which is contrary to the most fundamental rights of the defence. Finally, the applicant claims that the grounds alleged are insufficient and that there is a lack of credible and substantial evidence to support them and that that precludes adequate review by the courts of the legality of his inclusion and retention on the lists of persons subject to the restrictive measures at issue.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 June 2022 — De Dietrich Process Systems v EUIPO — Koch-Glitsch (SCHEIBEL)

(Case T-351/22)

(2022/C 294/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: De Dietrich Process Systems GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koch-Glitsch LP (Wichita, Kansas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark SCHEIBEL — European Union trade mark No 3 790 375

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2022 in Case R 1107/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the European Union trade mark proprietor’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO dated 29 April 2021 (Case No 42 180 C) declaring European Union trade mark No 3 790 375 (‘SCHEIBEL’) invalid in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article (7)(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 9 June 2022 — PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy v Commission

(Case T-348/22)

(2022/C 294/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PT Indonesia Ruipu Nickel and Chrome Alloy (Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/433 of 15 March 2022 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (1); and

— order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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 Commission violated Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(1)(a), 4(3) and (5) and 28 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) (‘basic Regulation’) by countervailing schemes that were not countervailable subsidies within the meaning of the basic Regulation.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission used erroneous benchmarks in the determination of benefit and calculation of the amount of the countervailable subsidies, in violation of Articles 3(2), 6(a), (b), and (d), and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to allocate the amount of subsidy concerning the provision of nickel ore over the production of the product concerned during the investigation period, in violation of Articles 7(2) and 15(1) and (2) of the basic Regulation.

(1) OJ 2022 L 88, p. 24.

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 55).
—

order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material and financial harm valued respectively, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 10 000 and EUR 964 800;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Cayago Tec v EUIPO — iAqua (Personal watercraft, Motorboats)

(Case T-377/22)

(2022/C 326/29)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Cayago Tec GmbH (Bad Salzuflen, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iAqua (Shenzen) Ltd (Shenzen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Design at issue: EU design (Personal watercraft, Motorboats) — EU design No 6 611 570-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2022 in Case R 951/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener in the proceedings before EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, in conjunction with Articles 4 and 6 of that regulation.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 July 2022 — Hasbro v EUIPO — Kreativni dogadaji (DRINKOPOLY)

(Case T-413/22)

(2022/C 318/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative DRINKOPOLY mark — International registration designating the European Union No 1 062 463

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2022 in Case R 596/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 June 2022 — Good Services v EUIPO — ITV Studios Global Distribution (EL ROSCO)

(Case T-383/22)

(2022/C 340/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Good Services ltd. (Sliema, Malta) (represented by: L. Alonso Domingo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITV Studios Global Distribution Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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 EL ROSCO — EU trade mark No 13 265 483

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2022 in Case R 958/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and confirm the registration of EU trade mark No 13 265 483 for all the goods and services for which it was granted or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of EUIPO for further consideration following directions from the Court;

— order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings and the previous proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 July 2022 — Rada Perfumery v EUIPO — Prada (RADA PERFUMES)

(Case T-439/22)

(2022/C 326/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rada Perfumery SRL (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) (represented by: E.-M. Dicu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

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 RADA PERFUMES — Application for registration No 18 186 386

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 April 2022 in Case R 1610/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, as a consequence, reject the opposition and, consequently, admit the registration of the European Union trade mark No 18 186 386.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

annul the decision of 13 May 2022, notified on 16 May 2022, by which the defendant offset, first, the applicant’s claim against the defendant for the costs which the Commission was ordered to pay by the judgments of 21 December 2021, HB v Commission (T-795/19, not published, EU:T:2021:917), and of 21 December 2021, HB v Commission (T-796/19, not published, EU:T:2021:918) and, second, the claim of EUR 1 197 055,86(contract CARDS/2008/166-429) (the principal amount) which the Commission purports to have against the applicant under the recovery decision of 15 October 2019;