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

Action brought on 27 October 2022 — Seopult v Commission

(Case T-660/22)

(2022/C 482/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Seopult LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: A. Gaspar Schwalbach, C. Pinto Xavier and M. Cotrim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the European Commission’s Decision of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III;

— order the European Commission to bear the entirety of 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 essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-588/22, Renco Valore v Commission.
First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision is premised upon a manifest error of assessment.

The applicant holds a marketing authorisation for a separate medicinal product, VOCABRIA, which the European Commission granted to the applicant on 17 December 2020. The basis for the European Medicines Agency’s (hereafter the ‘EMA’) contested Decision is the EMA’s view that APRETUDE is the same medicinal product as VOCABRIA. The EMA therefore considers that a request for authorisation must be made to the Commission under Article 82(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) before a marketing authorisation application may be made in respect of APRETUDE.

The EMA committed a manifest error of assessment by concluding that APRETUDE is the same medicinal product as VOCABRIA. The differences between APRETUDE and VOCABRIA’s indications (and thus the two products’ safety and efficacy profiles), their strengths, and presentations mean they cannot be regarded in law as the same medicinal product. Accordingly, the contested Decision is premised upon a manifest error and must be annulled.
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-674/22)

(2023/C 7/52)

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 figurative mark LabCorp — Application No 15 174 774

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 August 2022 in Case R 1998/2020-2

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
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion by applying an artificial and arbitrary grading methodology clashing with the core objectives of the endo-atmospheric interceptor solution (hereafter the ‘EATMI Project’). The EATMI Project aims to allocate a European Defence Fund (hereafter the ‘EDF’) € 100 million grant for the concept phase of an interceptor solution against ‘hypersonic’ missiles and gliders. This new type of aerial weapons which, to date, cannot be countered by existing air defence systems, have been used for the first time by Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. In a context of heightened geopolitical insecurity, they pose an unprecedented, game-changing and potentially existential threat to the integrity and security of the Union’s Member States and citizens. They require a new approach to air defence design. Yet the Commission’s grading methodology strays away from that objective: — First, the Commission applied an identical standard weighting methodology to all 2021 EDF projects, without taking into account the crucial stakes of the EATMI Project; — Second, the Commission assessed the applicants’ proposals almost exclusively on the basis of generic considerations common to all 2021 EDF projects, which lack relevance or even clash with the objectives of the EATMI Project; — Through this artificial and arbitrary methodology, the Commission exceeded its discretion, undermining the Union’s capacity to foster an autonomous response to hypersonic threats as a result.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Standbycom v Commission

(Case T-687/22)

(2023/C 24/68)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Standbycom, Unipessoal, 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 12 November 2022 — Khayamedia v Commission

(Case T-695/22)

(2023/C 24/72)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Khayamedia Comércio Internacional de Eventos Desportivos, 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 12 November 2022 — Dabrezco Internacional v Commission

(Case T-692/22)

(2023/C 24/70)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Dabrezco Internacional, 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.
Action brought on 25 November 2022 — Kantor v Council

(Case T-748/22)

(2023/C 24/106)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Viatcheslav Moshe Kantor (Herzliya, Israel) (represented by: T. Bontinck, A. Guillerme and M. Brésart, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it extends the applicant’s listing as entry No 896 in the annex to Decision 2014/145/CFSP, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, for the same reasons as those stated in the latter;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it extends the applicant’s listing as entry No 896 in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2014/269, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/581 of 8 April 2022, by reason of identity of grounds with the latter;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-734/22, Pumpyanskiy v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Roethig López v EUIPO — William Grant & Sons Irish Brands (AMAZONIAN GIN COMPANY)

(Case T-756/22)

(2023/C 24/111)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eric Roethig López (Lluchmajor, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Irish Brands Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AMAZONIAN GIN COMPANY — European Union trade mark No 17 952 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2022 in Case R 1978/2021-5

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 General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging misinterpretation of Article 75 of the IMS and of Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules. Infringement of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the applicant’s entitlement to a pension. — The applicant claims that the contested act is unlawful on the ground that the European Parliament misinterpreted and misapplied Article 75 of the IMS and Article 2(1) of Annex III to the PEAM Rules. The applicant submits that those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the reference, in Article 75 of the IMS, to Annexes I, II and III to the PEAM Rules, and in particular to Article 2(1) of Annex III, must necessarily be understood as referring to the pension applicable when that Annex III was in force. By contrast, the abovementioned provisions have been interpreted and applied by the Parliament as allowing the applicant’s pension to be amended an indefinite number of times, in clear breach of Article 28 of the Statute for Members and of the principles of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. — In the end, even if the interpretation of the European Parliament were to be adopted — according to which Article 2(1) of Annex III to the PEAM Rules requires that institution to adjust the EU pension to the pension amount prescribed for the members of the lower house of the national parliament — such an adjustment operation meets its limit under EU law and, in any event, it may relate only to that amount and the conditions for paying the pension, with the consequence that acts that affect the entitlement to a pension itself may not be transposed automatically. However, in the present case, the measure applied to the applicant, through the automatic transposition of Decision 150/2022 by the European Parliament, not only amended the applicant’s entitlement to a pension, by affecting the conditions relating to the constitution of that entitlement due to the retroactive recalculation that changed the pension itself, but presents, moreover, clear signs of incompatibility with EU law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 November 2022 — Ostrava v Commission

(Case T-707/22)

(2023/C 35/84)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Ostrava — Trading e Serviços Internacionais, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda (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.
—

annul the notice of Open Competition EPSO/AST/154/22 — assistants (AST 3) in the fields of financial management, accounting and treasury, public procurement, graphic design and visual content production, social and digital media, and webmaster, published 22 September 2022 in the Official Journal of the European Union;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/11

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2007 — Pitsiorlas v Council and ECB

(Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04) (1)

(Access to documents - Basle/Nyborg Agreement - Action for annulment - Challengeable acts - Statement of reasons - Plea of illegality - Decision 93/731/EC - Rules of Procedure of the European Central Bank - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community for the unlawful conduct of its organs - Damage - Causal link)

(2008/C 8/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Athanasios Pitsiorlas (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: D. Papafilippou, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer, S. Kyriakopoulou and D. Zachariou, and subsequently by M. Bauer and D. Zachariou, acting as Agents), and European Central Bank (represented, in Case T-3/00, initially by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and P. Vospernik, and subsequently by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt, F. Athanasiou and S. Vuorensola, and finally by C. Zilioli, C. Kroppenstedt and F. Athanasiou and, in Case T-337/04, by C. Kroppenstedt, F. Athanasiou and P. Papapaschalis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of the decisions of the Council and the European Central Bank refusing the applicant access to documents relating to the Basle/Nyborg Agreement of September 1987 and, second, for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Governing Council of 21 October 1999, as brought to the knowledge of Mr Athanasios Pitsiorlas by letter of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 8 November 1999;

2. Dismisses the action for annulment as to the remainder;

3. Dismisses the action for damages;

4. Orders the Council, the ECB and the applicant each to bear their own costs as incurred in Joined Cases T-3/00 and T-337/04. The Council shall bear the costs that it incurred in Case C-193/01 P, together with those incurred in that case by the applicant.

(1) OJ C 122, 29.4.2000.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/21

Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2012 — British Aggregates v Commission

(Case T-210/02 RENV) (1)

(State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Commission decision not to raise objections - Advantage - Selective nature)

2012/C 118/33

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Pouncey, J. Coombes, Solicitors, and L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, J. Flett and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: T. Harris, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, and by M. Hall and G. Facenna, Barristers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy, save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;

2. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association before the Court of Justice and the General Court;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

(1) OJ C 219, 14.9.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Deutsche Post v Commission

(Case T-266/02) (1)

(State aid - Measures implemented by the German authorities for Deutsche Post AG - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Service of general economic interest - Compensation for additional costs generated by a policy of selling below cost in the door-to-door parcel delivery sector - No advantage)

(2008/C 209/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J. Flett, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: F. Mitzkus, T. Wambach and R. Wojtek, lawyers); and UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially by T. Ottervanger and A. Bijleveld, and subsequently by T. Ottervanger, lawyers)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2002 L 247, p. 27).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2002/753/EC of 19 June 2002 on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

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

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Bundesverband Internationaler Express- und Kurierdienste eV (BIEK) and UPS Europe NV/SA to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/32

Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2009 — Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission

(Joined Cases T-440/03, T-121/04, T-171/04, T-208/04, T-365/04 and T-484/04 (1))

(Non-contractual liability - Customs Union - Action for failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Reasoned Opinion - Abolition in French legislation of the monopoly of the profession of ship brokers - Sufficiently serious breach - Causal link)

2010/C 37/40

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jean Arizmendi (Bayonne, France) and the 60 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented in Case T-440/03 by: J.-F. Péricaud, P. Péricaud and M. Tournois and, in Cases T-121/04, T-171/04, T-208/04, T-365/04 and T-484/04, by J.-F. Péricaud and M. Tournois, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-P. Jacqué and M. Giorgi Fort, then by F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents); and the European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and, in Case T-121/04, by X. Lewis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants in Case T-440/03: Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France (National Chamber of French ship brokers), Paris, France (represented by: J.-F. Péricaud, lawyer)

Re:

Action for damages, brought under Article 235 EC and Article 288 EC, second paragraph, seeking compensation from the Community for the damage caused by the abolition of the monopoly of the French profession of ship brokers.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions;

2. Orders Mr Jean Arizmendi and the 60 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and those of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

3. Orders the Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France to bear its own costs;

4. Orders the Council and the Commission to bear their own costs incurred by the intervention of the Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/41

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 July 2008 — BPB v Commission

(Case T-53/03) (1)

(Competition - Cartels - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Single and continuous infringement - Repeated infringement - Fine - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice)

(2008/C 209/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BPB plc (Slough, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Sharpe QC, and A. Nourry, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, Agent, J. Flynn QC, and C. Kilroy, Barrister)

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding 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, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on BPB plc by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding 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) at EUR 118,8 million;

2. Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

3. Orders the Commission to pay one tenth of its own costs and one tenth of the costs incurred by BPB;

4. Orders BPB to pay nine tenths of its own costs and nine tenths of the costs incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/25

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2008 — Orsay v OHIM — Jiménez Arellano (O orsay)

(Case T-39/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for the word and figurative trade mark O orsay - Earlier national word and figurative trade mark D'ORSAY - Ground for refusal - Risk of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 79/49)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Orsay GmbH (Willstät, Germany) (represented by: D. von Schultz and S. Elbe, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially, by: U. Pfeghar, later by: G. Schneider, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José Jiménez Arellano S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially, by: J. Astiz Suárez, later by: S. Hernán-Carrillo Portolés and finally by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyers,

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2003 (Case R 394/2002-4) concerning an opposition procedure between José Jiménez Arellano S.A. and Orsay GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

1. The application is dismissed;

2. Orsay GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.