ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

The second plea in law alleges breach of duty of care and the principle of sound administration, on the one hand, and of breach of the right to human dignity and Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the other, on the ground that by not adopting a final decision on whether the incidents of alleged psychological harassment were true, the Parliament’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment breached the principle of sound administration and its duty of care, thereby breaching the applicants’ right to human dignity.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission’s decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality and free movement of services that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s. The liberalisation of the air transport market in the EU has allowed the growth of truly pan-European low-fares airlines. The decision of the European Commission ignores the role of such pan-European airlines in the market structure of EU Member States by allowing France to reserve aid only to those EU airlines to which France has issued EU operating licenses. Article 107(2)(b) TFEU provides for an exception to the prohibition of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU, but it does not provide for an exception to the other rules and principles of the TFEU.
—

the contested individual decision, notified to the applicant by the ‘Members’ Salaries and Social Entitlements’ Unit of the Directorate-General for Finances of the European Parliament concerning the applicant’s rights to his additional (voluntary) pension, shall be annulled on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as that that decision implemented the increase in the age of entitlement to additional (voluntary) retirement due to the applicant from the age of 63 to 65 years as of 1 January 2019, as introduced by the Bureau’s decision of 10 December 2018 referred to above;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 May 2020 — Ceramica Flaminia v EUIPO — Ceramica Cielo (goclean)

(Case T-290/20)

(2020/C 222/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Ceramica Flaminia SpA (Civita Castellana, Italy) (represented by: A. Improda and R. Arista, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ceramica Cielo SpA (Fabrica di Roma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark goclean — European Union trade mark No 13 270 046

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 in Case R 991/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and alter the contested decision;

and, accordingly,

— recognise the validity of European Union trade mark No 13 270 046 with regard to all or some of the goods in Class 11;

— order EUIPO and/or Ceramica Cielo SpA. to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the previous two stages before the Cancellation Division and before the Board of Appeal incurred by Ceramica Flaminia SpA.

Pleas in law

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

— Interpretation of distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Unfounded classification of the mark as a slogan;

— Infringement and misapplication of Article 95(1) in relation to Article 59 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Arbuzov v Council

(Case T-267/20)

(2020/C 222/34)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Sergej Arbuzov (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation apply to the applicant;

— declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the 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 infringement of the right to good administration — The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not in adopting Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 (3) act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property — The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.

(1) OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10.

(2) OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1.

(3) Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7).
—

annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of the Single Resolution Board of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of Banco Popular Español S.A.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission

(Case T-319/20)

(2020/C 240/40)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 June 2020 — St. Hippolyt v EUIPO — Elephant (Strong like nature)

(Case T-352/20)

(2020/C 247/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: St. Hippolyt Holding GmbH (Dielheim, Germany) (represented by M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elephant Co. Preduzeće za proizvodnju, unutrašnju i spoljnu trgovinu d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘Strong like nature’ — Application No 17 494 071

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 in Case R 1909/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Le-Vel Brands (Le-Vel)

(Case T-331/20)

(2020/C 247/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Le-Vel Brands LLC (Frisco, Texas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Le-Vel — Application for registration No 15 229 974

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2020 in Case R 2113/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the European Union trade mark application ‘Le-vel’, No 15 229 974, for all goods and services in class 3 and 35;

— order EUIPO and the intervener (in case Le-Vel Brands, LLC. decides to intervene in the present proceedings) to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 June 2020 — Jiruš v EUIPO — Nile Clothing (Racing Syndicate)

(Case T-356/20)

(2020/C 255/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Václav Jiruš (Vitín, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Zedníková, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nile Clothing AG (Sutz, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Racing Syndicate — European Union trade mark No 11 801 065

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 March 2020 in Case R 1488/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refer the case back for reconsideration;

— oblige the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to compensate the applicant for all costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 72(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) The second plea alleges that, by artificially separating the proposed concentration, the defendant infringed the Treaties of the European Union and the provisions of the Merger Regulation. In particular, it disregarded procedural rules relating to mergers and thereby failed to take account, or did not take account correctly, of circumstances relevant to the decision. These included in particular the failure to take into account the legal, economic and factual link between the entire merger project, the incorrect classification of the transaction as an asset swap, the failure to take into account the competitive effects of the consideration of RWE AG’s 16,67 % share in E.ON SE and the incorrect assessment of the competitive effects of the transaction; In particular, the defendant failed to properly define the market. In addition, the defendant had based its assessment of the effects of the transaction on an incorrect scope of assessment and had incorrectly assessed RWE’s incentives created by the transaction to deliberately withhold generation capacities. In this respect, the defendant came to the incorrect conclusion that the merger could be examined separately and that it had no adverse effects on Community-wide competition.
Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)

(Case T-372/20)

(2020/C 262/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 JUVEDERM — European Union trade mark No 2 196 822

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.

Pleas in law

— Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)

(Case T-332/20)

(2020/C 255/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

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 Royal Bavarian Beer — Application for registration No 1 384 147

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 in Case R 1714/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard;

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

— Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)

(Case T-353/20)

(2020/C 262/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN in red, black and white — International registration designating the European Union No 1 329 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 161/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
—

stay the proceedings under Article 69(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court until a final decision is issued in Cases T-420/17, T-413/18, T-481/19 and T-339/20 or until those cases are otherwise brought to a conclusion;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)

(Case T-396/20)

(2020/C 271/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, France)

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 figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORTS in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 397 309

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 2172/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision to: — allow the applicant’s appeal, — grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 825 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid, — order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division, — alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.

Pleas in law

— Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;

— Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

— Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;

— Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 July 2020 — SBG v EUIPO — VF International (GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION)

(Case T-459/20)

(2020/C 287/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Super Brand Licencing (SBG) (Villeurbanne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and A. Sion, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland)

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 GEOGRAPHICAL NORWAY EXPEDITION in black, taupe, red and white — EU trade mark No 9 860 834

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 664/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in respect of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 28 May 2020 — ACMO and Others v SRB

(Case T-330/20)

(2020/C 279/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ACMO Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and 69 other applicants (represented by: T. Soames, N. Chesaites, lawyers and R. East, Solicitor)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of the Single Resolution Board’s decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Espanol S.A. have been effected (‘the contested decision’); and/or

— annul Article 1 of the contested decision; and/or

— annul Article 3 of the contested decision; and/or

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 contested decision, and in particular the determination that no compensation is due, pursuant to Article 76(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) (Article 2), to creditors (including the applicants), is vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and errors of law, and therefore in violation of the applicants’ right to property. Specifically, the applicants argue that the SRB committed manifest errors of assessment and errors of law by adopting the contested decision on the basis of a valuation report (‘Valuation 3 Report’) and a ‘clarification’ thereof appended to the contested decision, authored by Deloitte Réviseurs d’Entreprises (‘Deloitte’) which determined that the applicants would not have realised any recoveries if Banco Popular had entered normal insolvency proceedings in Spain.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the SRB’s decision to appoint Deloitte to undertake Valuation 3 was vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and/or errors of law in that Deloitte did not satisfy the fundamental criterion of independence under Article 20(16) of Regulation (EU) 806/2014.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the SRB improperly delegated its decision-making powers under Regulation (EU) 806/2014 to Deloitte in violation of the principle laid down by Union case law in the seminal Case 9/56 Meroni. (2)

(1) Regulation (EU) 806/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2014 establishing uniform rules and a uniform procedure for the resolution of credit institutions and certain investment firms in the framework of a Single Resolution Mechanism and a Single Resolution Fund and amending Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014 L 225, p. 1).

(2) Judgment of 13 June 1958, Meroni v High Authority, Case 9/56, EU:C:1958:7.