ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the principle of due care. — The applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to adopt the contested decision without affording the Netherlands the opportunity of expressing its views on the grounds on which the Commission comes to the conclusion in the decision that the Netherlands granted aid to ING by agreeing to amended repayment terms. — In the alternative, the Commission infringed the principle of due care by adopting the decision without taking account of the arguments put forward by the Netherlands in the earlier proceedings before the General Court which led to the judgment of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10, and in which the Court concurred with those arguments.
—

Annul: — Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh; — Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/30

Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Afepadi and Others v Commission

(Case T-354/12)

2012/C 295/54

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi) (Barcelona, Spain), Elaboradores Dietéticos, SA (Spain), Nova Diet, SA (Burgos, Spain), Laboratorios Vendrell, SA (Spain), Ynsadiet, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Velázquez González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul recitals 11, 14 and 17 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EU) 432/2012 as they are seriously detrimental to the applicants’ interests;

— in the interest of legal certainty, declare that the rejection of the health claims listed in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council must result from a legislative act;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 16 May 2012 the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health. (1) That regulation implements Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. (2)

In support of their action, the applicants claim that the principle of legal certainty has been infringed.

In that regard, it claims that, in spite of the work which has been carried out, the Commission’s task laid down in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of adopting a Community list of permitted claims has not been fulfilled in its entirety, since not all of the health claims submitted for evaluation by the EFSA were made subject to an authorisation decision. Consequently, a large number of statements remain to be evaluated for the first time or to be evaluated more extensively, including evaluations of botanical substances which the applicants frequently use in their foodstuffs.

In that way, operators in the foodstuff production sector and users of botanical substances know, with certainty, which health claims are based on generally accepted scientific data (the 222 authorised health claims) and which may be used in their products. However, they have not been informed in the same way (by means of a regulation) of the situation as regards claims which are not on the authorised list, that is to say, whether they are pending evaluation or require further evaluation, whether they have been rejected, whether they have been authorised or not, or when and in what time-frame.

(1) OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/38

Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lamps)

(Case T-343/12)

2012/C 287/69

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Grupo T Diffusión (El Prat de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: A. Lasala Grimalt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Case R 1622/2010-3 concerning invalidity proceedings in respect of Community design No 000 42 7448-0001 and declare that design to be fully effective and valid, with no order for costs against Grupo T Diffusión, SA in respect of the costs of ABR and OHIM

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design for a lamp — Registered Community Design No 000 42 7448-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Prior design of a ‘Cypress’ standard lamp

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 August 2012 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Apro Tech (APRO)

(Case T-372/12)

(2012/C 331/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J. Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apro Tech Co., Ltd (Taichung Hsien, Taiwan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 in Case R 196/2011-2, declaring that, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the opponent’s action before OHIM should have been upheld and the decision of the Opposition Division granting Community trade mark No 8 253 551‘APRO’ (mixed) in full should have been annulled;

— order the defendant and the other party opposing this action to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Apro Tech Co., Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘APRO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 8 253 551

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: national and Community figurative mark ‘B-PRO by Boomerang’ and Community word marks ‘PRO MOUNTAIN’ and ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods in Class 12

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First ground of appeal: ‘Failure to have regard to the principle of good faith, fairness and impartiality — failure to indicate clearly the prescriptive authority to be attributed to certain provisions and practices followed by the Commission in its relationships with its employees’ In that connection, the appellant states that in the order under appeal her arguments were held to be manifestly unfounded, with the Civil Service Tribunal finding that the salary slip for January 2010 could be challenged as from when she became aware of her actual position. However, that salary slip is not a decision-making act which can be challenged independently, since it is not conclusive of her position at the time of pension. It is settled case-law that, since a salary slip is an administrative decision of an accounting nature, it cannot constitute per se an act adversely affecting an official and, consequently, in the absence of other specific elements, it is not open to challenge before the courts. In that regard, the appellant states that the SysPer 2 system is not sufficient to quantify future pension rights in pecuniary terms, just as the ‘Calculette Pension’ (pensions calculator) gives a figure which is solely indicative and not open to challenge. Ms Conticchio was only able to challenge the final decision, communicated in writing, concerning the award and calculation of her pension rights, since it was not until then that she could be certain of the exact monthly amount of the pension itself.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/34

Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Vitaminaqua Ltd v OHIM

(Case T -410/12)

2012/C 355/71

Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States of America)

Form of order sought

— Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting application No 8338592 for registration of the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ (Case R 997/2011-1) and order the registration of the trade mark in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM, thereby conferring protection as a trade mark on the sign;

— Order the defendant or the other party to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 8 338 592).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Energy Brands, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia the national word mark ‘VITAMINWATER’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division set aside and application for registration as a Community trade mark rejected.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Action brought on 28 August 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

(Case T-394/12)

(2012/C 331/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the defendant to reject the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders UCA-218-07 for the provision of technical maintenance — help desk and on-site intervention services for the PC’s printers and peripherals of the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ/S 2008/S 91-122796), communicated afresh to the applicant by registered letter dated 18 June 2012, following the annulment of the previous award decision dated 1 December 2008 by the General Court in its judgment in case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account if the tendering procedure in question; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violated the tender specification since the use of the movers to execute technical assistance tasks as envisaged in the winning tender is contrary to such specifications;

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by multiple manifest errors of assessment especially concerning the certification of the winning tenderer, the qualifications of the personnel of the winning tenderer as opposed to those of the applicant, the knowledge transfer marks, the evaluation of the number of staff proposed by the tenderers.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the evaluation committee mixed selection and award criteria and phases of the tendering procedure.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that there exist various inconsistencies and inaccurate information in the call for tenders.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not comply with the provision of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1), especially with regard to the verification of selection criteria.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/27

Action brought on 25 September 2012 — CW v Council

(Case T-162/12)

2012/C 355/58

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: CW (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Tekari, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— declare the application admissible and well founded;

— consequently, declare Decision 2012/50/CFSP null and void in all its effects, in so far as it relates to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs, as well as EUR 2 500 000 in respect of non-recoverable expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, alleging (i) an infringement of the rules of procedure and the rights of the defence; (ii) a lack of legal basis; (iii) an infringement of Article 1 of Decision 2011/72/CFSP (1) and an insufficient statement of reasons; (iv) an error of assessment; and (v) a disproportionate infringement of the right to property and of entrepreneurial freedom.

(1) Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 62).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/36

Action brought on 14 September 2012 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)

(Case T-411/12)

2012/C 366/73

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision corrigendum (of the decision of 2 May 2012) of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 June 2012 in Case R 767/2011-2.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alliance Healthcare France SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PHARMASTREET’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — application for Community trade mark No 8 658 445

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘PHARMASEE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 42 and 44

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition is upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal is granted and the decision of the Opposition Division is annulled

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal and an infringement of Article 2(7)(c), first indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by rejecting the market economy treatment claim of the applicant on the basis of alleged distortion of the price of the raw material benzene. The Union institutions committed a manifest error of appraisal as they compared the prices of benzene produced from coke with benzene produced from petroleum, and based their assessment on an export duty on benzene, which they acknowledged was not in force. In addition, the institutions infringed Article 2(7)(c), first indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by considering that the absence of VAT refund on exports of benzene constituted significant State interference in the applicant’s business decisions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/36

Action brought on 27 September 2012 — Skype v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (skype)

(Case T-423/12)

2012/C 355/75

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer, and J. Mellor, QC)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom); and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 July 2012 in case R 1561/2010-4; and

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘skype’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 4546248

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3203411 for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38, 41 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2302176 E for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 38; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2302176 B for the word mark ‘SKY’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 1178409 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 1178540 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 3166337 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 3203619 of the figurative mark ‘sky’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42; Earlier non-registered trade mark, trade name and company name ‘SKY’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/31

Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

(Case T-463/12)

2012/C 379/52

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 506/2011-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MB’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 369 771

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Müller-Boré & Partner

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark MBP and the national and Community trade mark, including the word element ‘MB&P’, for services in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/32

Appeal brought on 15 October 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 in Case F-57/12 R, Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-464/12 P (R))

2012/C 379/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the decision of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 August 2012 rejecting the application for suspension of the operation of: (i) the Commission’s decision rejecting the appellant’s request for payment of the sum of EUR 1 661, unlawfully deducted, in the appellant’s opinion, from his invalidity allowance; (ii) the Commission’s implied decision dismissing the appellant’s complaint; and (iii) any decision on the basis of which the Commission deducted the sum of EUR 1 661 from the appellant’s invalidity allowance for the months of June, July, August and September 2011.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal.

— First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in the order under appeal, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, reasons which are manifestly illogical, unreasonable and arbitrary, as well as manifest error of assessment with regard to those reasons, in particular with regard to paragraphs 22 to 28 of the order.