ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/18

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — Gemeente Bergen op Zoom v Commission

(Case T-641/13)

2014/C 31/30

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Gemeente Bergen op Zoom (Bergen op Zoom, Netherlands) (represented by: T. Hovius and R. Pasma, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2013, (1) whereby the Commission found that the purchase by the Bergen op Zoom municipality of the industrial premises of Koninklijke Nedalco BV and Nedalco International BV did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107 TFEU and/or Article 108 TFEU in so far as the Commission failed to apply the market economy investor principle or, at least, applied that principle incorrectly, did not rely on the proper facts in that regard and/or did not provide sufficient reasons for the application of that principle.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 107 TFEU and/or Article 108 TFEU in so far as the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts and/or the law and committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that Nedalco had not been granted a (selective) advantage that it could not have acquired in the ordinary course of business.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles relating to the duty of care and the duty to state reasons in so far as the Commission erred in failing to investigate the facts put forward by the municipality and/or to provide sound reasons for the decision.

(1) OJ 2013 C 335, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/26

Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)

(Case T-577/13)

2014/C 24/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zehnder Verkaufs- und Verwaltungs-AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB ‘Amalva’ (Vilnius, Lithuania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2013 given in Case R 255/2012-4;

— Order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘komfovent’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 4 635 272

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/24

Action brought on 26 November 2013 — TrekStor v OHIM — MSI Technology (MovieStation)

(Case T-636/13)

2014/C 39/42

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: TrekStor Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MSI Technology GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 27 September 2013 (Case R 1914/2012-4) to the effect that MSI Technology GmbH’s application of 20 June 2011 for a declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark ‘MovieStation’ is rejected and that MSI Technology GmbH is ordered to pay the costs of that application;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the action before the Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘MovieStation’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark No 5743257

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: MSI Technology GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/23

Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Promotional Products Europe (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

(Case T-622/13)

2014/C 39/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Norwood Promotional Products Europe, SL (Tarragona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1244/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B 176807 is rejected, and

— order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9412776

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Norwood Promotional Products Europe, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘NORWOOD’ for goods in Class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/10

Action brought on 3 December 2013 — IOIP Holdings v OHIM (GLISTEN)

(Case T-648/13)

2014/C 61/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: IOIP Holdings LLC (Fort Wayne, United States of America) (represented by: H. Dhondt and S. Kinart, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 September 2013 given in Case R 1028/2013-2;

— Order the Office to register the Community trade mark applied for;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GLISTEN’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 11 305 273

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) CTMR
1.

First plea, concerning the interpretation of Commission Recommendation No 2003/361 with respect to the criteria for classifying SMEs. — The applicant claim in this regard that, for purposes of classification as an SME, it is necessary to verify whether the target enterprise is an autonomous enterprise or rather forms part of a group of companies. Depending on the role performed by the target enterprise, it will be necessary to evaluate the financial data of the enterprises in the group and, in particular, the financial data of the ‘partner’ enterprises and those of the ‘linked’ enterprises. — On this point, the applicant submits that the basic rule for assessing the size of the target enterprise is the rule according to which, in addition to data relating to its size, the following data are to be added: (i) the data of any partner enterprise of the target enterprise situated immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights. 100 % of the data of any enterprise ‘linked’ to those ‘partner’ undertakings must be aggregated with the data relating to the target enterprise thus calculated, (ii) 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises directly or indirectly ‘linked’ to the target enterprise. The data of any partner enterprise of the enterprises linked to the target undertaking immediately upstream or downstream of the target enterprise, to an extent equivalent to the interest in the capital or percentage of voting rights, must be aggregated with 100 % of the data relating to the enterprises linked to the target enterprise.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/38

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)

(Case T-638/13)

2014/C 52/73

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 787/2012-4;

— Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL’ in red, gold, white and black for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 909

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/13

Action brought on 16 December 2013 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)

(Case T-665/13)

2014/C 61/22

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamepoint BV (The Hague, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2013 given in Case R 1388/2012-4;

— Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The coloured figurative mark in colours containing the verbal element ‘SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 658

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 9 058 868

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/40

Action brought on 17 December 2013 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission

(Case T-671/13)

2014/C 52/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat agricole Confédération paysanne (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission decision of 9 October 2013 in which the Commission declared inadmissible: — The request for internal review of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011, as regards the conditions of approval of the active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, and prohibiting the use and sale of seeds treated with plant protection products containing those active substances (OJ 2013 L 139, p. 12); — The request for internal review of the omission of the Commission to set a complete ban on clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid.

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

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 adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the United Nations Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention). The provisions applied by the Commission, Article 10 in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation (1), are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in the Aarhus Regulation should have led the Commission to not applying the criteria referred to in the contested decision and to declare the requests for internal review admissible.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ and ‘administrative omission’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the illegal definitions laid down in Article 2(1)(g) and (h) of the Aarhus Regulation. The Commission thus acted in breach of Article 10 of the Aarhus Regulation and the obligation to act in a Convention compliant way.

(1) Regulation (EC) no 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/25

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.

(Case T-680/13)

2014/C 194/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 50 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

— Find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— Determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (51 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.

The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.

The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning, since the reasons for the measures do not allow the applicant to contest their validity before the General Court and the latter to exercise its review of their lawfulness.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/51

Action brought on 6 January 2014 — Simet v Commission

(Case T-15/14)

2014/C 52/100

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Simet SpA (Rossano Calabro, Italy) (represented by: A. Clarizia and P. Clarizia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Commission Decision C(2013) 6251 final of 2 October 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 62 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — State aid Measure SA.33037 (C/2012) — Italy — Compensation of SIMET SpA for public transport services provided between 1987 and 2003;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Decision C(2013) 6251 final of the European Commission of 2 October 2013, which states that the payments made to SIMET of the compensation awarded by a judgment of the Italian Consiglio di Stato and notified by the Italian authorities constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and that that State aid was not exempt from prior notification on the basis of Article 17(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69.

In that regard, SIMET points out that the case giving rise to that judgment of the national court concerned compensation for the damage which it had suffered as a result of the unlawful aspects of measures adopted by the Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Italian Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport) (MIT) with regard to the provision of inter-regional public transport by road between 1987 and 2003.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that:

1. the national legislation, on the basis of which the MIT managed SIMET’s business activity during the period examined by the Consiglio di Stato in its judgment, is incompatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69, which, following the amendments made by Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91, prohibited Member States from subjecting businesses which, like SIMET, provide inter-regional bus transport services to individuals to any public service obligations;

2. contrary to the Commission’s assertions, SIMET was subjected to public service obligations, as the administrative concessionary measures adopted by the MIT for the provision of inter-regional bus passenger transport services, in accordance with the requirements of national legislation, clearly deprived SIMET of any autonomy in carrying on its own business activity as that activity was directly shaped and dictated by the authorities;

3. the principles relating to compensation for damage suffered by individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law — on the basis of which, if the authorities of a Member State adopt an administrative measure within their sphere of competence which is contrary to European Union law, those authorities are obliged to pay compensation for any damage suffered by addresses of that measure owing to its unlawfulness — have been infringed;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 93/26

Action brought on 15 January 2014 — Costantini and Others v Commission

(Case T-44/14)

2014/C 93/46

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Bruno Costantini (Jesi, Italy), Robert Racke (Lamadelaine, Luxembourg), Pietro Pravata (Beyne-Heusay, Belgium), Zbigniew Galązka (Łódź, Poland), Justo Santos Domínguez (Leganés, Spain), Maria Isabel Lemos (Mealhada, Portugal), André Clavelou (Vincennes, France), Citizens' Committee ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and Independence is a fundamental right!’, (represented by: O. Brouwer, lawyer and A. Woods, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Commission of 5 November 2013 refusing to register Citizens’ Initiative ‘Right to Lifelong Care: Leading a life of dignity and independence is a fundamental right!’ (Initiative) pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1), as communicated to the representative and substitute representative of the applicants on 5 November 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘C(2013) 7612 final’ (Contested Decision); and

— Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs, including the costs of any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission, when it refused to register the Initiative, misapplied the proper legal test of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 by (i) incorrectly establishing that the Initiative’s objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and (ii) by not taking into account the underlying principles of the Regulation No 211/2011.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to respect the general principles of good administration by refusing the registration of the Initiative, while it has registered citizens’ initiatives that intend to achieve a similar type of objectives.