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

Action brought on 7 November 2022 — Dr. Neumann & Kindler v EUIPO — Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (LABCORP)

(Case T-673/22)

(2023/C 7/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Dr. Neumann & Kindler GmbH & Co. KG (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: T. Pfeifer and N. Gottschalk, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings (Burlington, North Carolina, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark LABCORP — Application No 15 174 766

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2022 in Case R 182/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union and order the potential intervener to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 October 2022 — Canalones Castilla v EUIPO — Canalones Novokanal (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts)

(Case T-329/22)

(2023/C 7/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Canalones Castilla, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. J. Serrano Irurzun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canalones Novokanal, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design (Water-collection guttering; waterspouts) — Community design No 363 486-0001

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 April 2022 in Case R 1122/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— if the applicant’s claims are rejected in their entirety, order, in ruling as to costs in the decision closing the proceedings, that the other parties must bear their own costs.

Pleas in law

— The prior disclosure of the design submitted by the invalidity applicant has not been sufficiently established.

— In the alternative, the design submitted by the invalidity applicant as a prior design does not produce the same overall impression as the design at issue.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Norwood v Commission

(Case T-684/22)

(2023/C 24/65)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Norwood — Trading e Serviços, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Shaman Spirits/EUIPO — Global Drinks Finland (LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al.)

(Case T-679/22)

(2023/C 15/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oy Shaman Spirits Ltd (Tyrnävä, Finland) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Drinks Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade marks at issue: European Union figurative marks LAPLANDIA Land of purity et al. — European Union trade marks No 6 491 914, No 7 087 281 and No 14 786 883

Procedure before EUIPO: Procedure for entering licences in the Register

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2022 in Case R 909/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 25, 26 and 27 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 19 and 20 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in failing to consider whether the transaction falls within the territorial scope of the EU Merger Regulation and in asserting jurisdiction to review and prohibit the transaction without analysing whether the latter had the necessary nexus to, and would foreseeably produce immediate and substantial effects in, the EEA.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Fratelli Cosulich v Commission

(Case T-696/22)

(2023/C 24/73)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fratelli Cosulich, Unipessoal, SA (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 12 November 2022 — Everblacks Towage v Commission

(Case T-703/22)

(2023/C 24/79)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Everblacks Towage — Serviços Marítimos, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision in respect of Articles 1 and 4;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law that are, essentially, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 December 2022 — Nieß v EUIPO — Terrasoverkapping-inkoop.nl (GARTENLÜX)

(Case T-754/22)

(2023/C 24/109)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Nieß (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: A. Erlenhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Terrasoverkapping-inkoop.nl BV (Venlo, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark GARTENLÜX — Application No 18 347 602

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2022 in Case R 607/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 9 February 2022;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
annul the decision to maintain the applicant on the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures under Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3), as amended by the Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530, and under Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529, concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine;

collectively referred to as the ‘Contested Acts’, in so far as the Contested Acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Durie v Commission

(Case T-705/22)

(2023/C 35/83)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Durie — Trading e Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on six pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 December 2022 — Fibrecycle v EUIPO (BACK-2-NATURE)

(Case T-772/22)

(2023/C 45/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Fibrecycle Pty Ltd (Helensvale, Australia) (represented by: T. Stein, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark BACK-2-NATURE — Application for registration No 1 485 655

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2022 in Case R 1699/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence, together with procedural defects. In the first part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of the principle of transparency, the impossibility of believing in the independence of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (‘the AECE’), and the refusal to grant access to the essential information and documents in the case file. In the second part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of the principle of confidentiality in processing his request for assistance, the failure to observe procedural guarantees, the failure to implement a fair and objective procedure and, lastly, infringement of Articles 4.2 and 4.3 of the SRB Policy on preventing harassment. In the third part of the plea, the applicant complains of the lack of objective and subjective impartiality and of the presence of conflicts of interest which vitiated the examination of his request for assistance. In the fourth part of the plea, the applicant complains of a breach of his right to be heard in an effective manner by the AECE.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 221/33

Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2010 — Imperial Chemical Industries v Commission

(Case T-66/01) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for soda ash in the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC - Commission’s power to impose a fine or sanction - Reasonable time - Essential procedural requirements - Res judicata - Existence of the dominant position - Abuse of the dominant position - Effect on trade between Member States - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)

2010/C 221/51

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd, formerly Imperial Chemical Industries plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, D. Anderson QC and S. Lee, Barrister, and by S. Turner, S. Berwick and R. Coles, Solicitors, and then by D. Vaughan QC, S. Berwick, Solicitor, S. Lee and S. Ford, Barristers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and P. Oliver, Agents, and by J. Flynn QC and C. West, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) (OJ 2003 L 10, p. 33) or, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/7/EC of 13 December 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] (Case COMP/33.133-D: Soda ash — ICI) in so far as it states that Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd infringed Article 82 EC in 1983;

2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Imperial Chemical Industries in Article 2 of Decision 2003/7 at EUR 8 million;

3. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

4. Orders Imperial Chemical Industries to pay four fifths of its own costs and four fifths of those incurred by the European Commission;

5. Orders the European Commission to pay one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of those incurred by Imperial Chemical Industries.

(1) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/31

Judgment of the General Court of 14 September 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-236/02) (1)

(Referral to the General Court after annulment - Civil service - Officials - Employment in a non-Member state - Reassignment of post and post holder - Rights of the defence - Claim for damages - Full jurisdiction)

2011/C 311/51

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, application for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 March 2002 which reassigned the applicant from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate General for Development in Brussels (Belgium), of all preliminary, connected or consecutive measures, in particular those relating to the recruitment of another official to occupy his post, of the Commission’s notes of 13 and 14 November 2001 and of the opinion or opinions of the External Service Steering Committee, and, second, a claim for allowances in connection with his duties in Angola and damages for harm suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 18 March 2002 which reassigned Mr Luigi Marcuccio from the Directorate-General for Development, Commission Delegation in Luanda (Angola), to the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels (Belgium).

2. Dismisses the application as to the remainder.

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Marcucccio.

(1) OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/23

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2008 — PKK v Council

(Case T-229/02) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons)

(2008/C 142/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Osman Ocalan, on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) (represented by: M. Muller QC, E. Grieves and P. Moser, barristers, and J.G. Pierce, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop, and subsequently by M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents, assisted by S. Lee, Barrister) and Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: P. Kuijper and C. Brown, and subsequently by P. Hetsch and P. Aalto, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2002/460/EC: of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC in so far as it concerns the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

2. Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/40

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ASM Brescia v Commission

(Case T-189/03) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Individual concern - Admissibility - Article 87(3)(c) EC - Article 86(2) EC)

2009/C 180/72

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: ASM Brescia SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Capelli, F. Vitale and M. Valcada, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders ASM Brescia SpA to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/41

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Lafarge v Commission

(Case T-54/03) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Liability - Deterrence - Repeat infringement - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2008/C 209/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lafarge SA (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Lesguillons, J.-C. Bermond, N. Jalabert-Doury, A. Winckler, F. Brunet and I. Simic initially, then by N. Jalabert-Doury, A. Winckler and F. Brunet, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Ingen-Housz initially, then by F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt and E. Karlsson, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to proceedings under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8), or, in the alternative, an application for the annulment of or a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lafarge SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/33

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2008 — Ioannis Terezakis v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-380/04) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of commercial interests - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of audits - Partial access)

(2008/C 64/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially, L. Defalque, G. Xanthoulis, A. Tsamis, A. Georgiadis, E. Stefanakis, É. Koeune and G. Stylianakis, lawyers, and subsequently, G. Stylianakis, B. Keane, Solicitor, and P. Koutsoukos, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and P. Aalto, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 refusing the applicant access to certain documents relating to the construction of the new Athens International Airport at Spata

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 12 July 2004 in so far as it concerns the refusal of access to the contract of 14 June 1996 signed between Athens International Airport SA and a consortium of companies led by Hochtief AG;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders Mr Ioannis Terezakis to bear one half of his own costs;

4. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Terezakis.

(1) OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/15

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-381/04) (1)

(EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Animal subsidies and rural development - Inadequate national management and control system)

(2008/C 272/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M.Fiorilli, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C.Cattabriga and L.Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/561/EC of 16 July excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 250, p. 21), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic in the sectors of animal subsidies and rural development.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.