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

Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)

(Case T-342/19)

(2019/C 255/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

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 TASER in colours black, yellow and red — European Union trade mark No 11 710 134

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 in Case R 1576/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision expressly declaring the validity of the European Union trademark No. 11 710 134‘TASER’ (fig.) for all registered goods in class 18 and 25;

— order EUIPO and the intervening party, Taser International, Inc., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 345 TFEU and Articles 3, 7 and 121 TFEU, failure to observe multiple principles of EU law (equal treatment) and misuse of powers. The applicant claims in this respect that: — the contested decision should have stated that the possibility of carrying out maintenance is a prerogative of the right to property and that the Treaty safeguards the right of the Member States to maintain public ownership of assets and infrastructure, including port assets and infrastructure, and to ensure all entitled persons have access thereto; — the contested decision cannot horizontally and unreasonably apply the same rules on the maintenance of port infrastructure or fees for the occupation of port areas to situations that are not comparable: the notable differences between the models for management of ports in the European Union mean that the construction of new infrastructure that is exclusively privately owned cannot be treated in the same way as the maintenance of inalienable State property owned by a Member State and managed by that Member State via the public authorities. Such an approach is at odds with the principle of equal treatment; and — the contested decision cannot pursue the harmonisation of the various organisational models of ports in the European Union by means of the indiscriminate and unreasonable application of Article 107 TFEU.
Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the non-retroactivity of coercive rules, in that the President of the Parliament and the Advisory Committee applied a coercive rule to events prior to its adoption.

The applicant seeks, in addition, compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained. She claims that the way in which the investigation was conducted had the effect of tarnishing her reputation and caused her to lose the opportunity to stand as a candidate in the European elections.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 June 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)

(Case T-351/19)

(2019/C 263/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

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: Application for European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — Application for registration No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 April 2019 in Case R 2297/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the essential principles and values guiding the Union’s action on the international scene, since: — first, in breach of the right of peoples to respect for their national unity, the contested decision denies the existence of the Sahrawi people by using the expressions ‘the people of Western Sahara’ and ‘the people concerned’ instead; — secondly, in breach of the right of peoples to dispose freely of their natural resources, the contested decision concludes an international agreement that organises, without consent of the Sahrawi people, the exploitation of its fishery resources by Union vessels; — thirdly, the contested decision concludes an international agreement applicable to occupied Western Sahara, with the Kingdom of Morocco, in the context of its policy of annexation with regard to that territory and the systematic breaches of fundamental rights that maintaining such a policy entails.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 31 May 2019 — PNB Banka and Others v ECB

(Case T-330/19)

(2019/C 270/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: PNB Banka AS (Riga, Latvia), CR and CT (represented by: O. Behrends and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the ECB’s decision of 21 March 2019 regarding the proposed acquisition of qualifying holdings by the applicants in the target bank.

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the assessment period for the ECB pursuant to Article 22(2) of Directive 2013/36/EU (1) expired prior to the contested decision and that it was therefore no longer possible for the ECB to oppose the proposed acquisition.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the procedure prescribed under Article 15 of the SSM Regulation (2) and Articles 85 to 87 of the SSM Framework Regulation. (3)

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the assessment criteria pursuant to Article 23 of Directive 2013/36/EU and its Latvian implementation.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to take into account the discretionary nature of the decision to oppose a proposed acquisition.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB distorted the relevant facts of the case.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the nemo auditor principle by failing to take into account its own responsibility for the loss of confidence in the regulatory process.

(1) Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 338).

(2) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 63).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank of 16 April 2014 establishing the framework for cooperation within the Single Supervisory Mechanism between the European Central Bank and national competent authorities and with national designated authorities (ECB/2014/17) (OJ 2014 L 141, p. 1).
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation was adopted in breach of the principle of legal certainty because of the incorrect application of guidelines.
—

annul Directive (EU) 2019/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union of 17 April 2019 amending Directive 2009/73/EC concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas, insofar as Article 1 (9) of this Directive introduced Article 49a (3) first sentence of Directive 2009/73 stipulating that ‘[d]ecisions pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be adopted by 24 May 2020’;
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging, in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 33 of the judgment of 24 April 2001 in Miranda v Commission (Case T-37/99, EU:T:2001:122), with the Del Vaglio case-law (case-law culminating in order of 12 October 2004 in Del Vaglio v Commission, Case C-352/03 P EU:C:2004:613) and with the judgment of 15 March 2011 in Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni v European Commission (Case F-28/10, EU:F:2011:23), that the applicant’s intention of conferring a lasting character on the centre of his interests, such as to fix his habitual residence, was not linked to Belgium, given that he, inter alia, gave a ‘Limosa declaration’ during his reference period. He is therefore entitled to the full expatriation allowance. He draws attention to the fact that the defendant in its reply wrongly focuses only on the applicant’s physical presence in Belgium.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the group financing exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is illegal in so far as it is based on Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), a provision that is itself illegal and therefore inapplicable in the present case in accordance with Article 277 TFEU. That provision infringes the fundamental right to an effective remedy in that it does not allow undertakings to which a Commission inspection decision is addressed to bring proceedings to challenge the manner in which the inspection is carried out.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Seven v EUIPO (7Seven)

(Case T-557/19)

(2019/C 328/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark 7Seven — European Union trade mark No 8 252 223

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2019 in Case R 2076/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application lodged by Seven SpA for restitutio in integrum and recordal request No 14 602 687 for EU trademark No 8 252 223.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 August 2019 – Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management v EUIPO – Lacoste (LOVE PINK)

(Case T-582/19)

(2019/C 348/18)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (Reynoldsburg, Ohio, United States) (represented by: J. Dickerson, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lacoste SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark LOVE PINK – Application for registration No 11 853 389

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2019 in Case R 1078/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision, namely as far as it relates to the ground of opposition based on Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR;

— authorize for the registration of European Union trade mark Application No 11 853 389;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs of the action.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 August 2019 – Perfect Bar v EUIPO (PERFECT Bar)

(Case T-563/19)

(2019/C 337/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Perfect Bar LLC (San Diego, California, United States) (represented by: F. Miazzetto, J. Gracia Albero, R. Seoane Lacayo and E. Cebollero González, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark PERFECT Bar – Application for registration No 15 376 064

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2019 in Case R 372/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs derived from the procedure before the General Court and EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle that disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial, together with breach of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care.
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment in the promotion procedure. That plea in law is divided into four parts. — First part, alleging inaccuracy and subjectivity of the assessment reports concerning officials. In that regard, the applicant considers that three errors were committed. The first error concerns the fact that the reports on the applicant were drafted by a single person, the second relates to the inaccuracy of the content of the assessment reports and the third arises from the failure to take into account the applicant’s self-assessment. — Second part, alleging that there is no objective test for evaluating language skills. In that regard, the applicant considers that three errors were committed. The first error concerns the fact that the applicant’s reports were drafted by a single person, the second relates to failure to use the objective tests available on the market and the third arises from the fact that the assessment does not reflect reality. — Third part alleging that the assessment of the level of responsabilities exercised was subjective. — Fourth part, alleging that the choice of factual evidence to be taken into account was subjective.
1.

First plea in law, alleging error of assessment, misuse of powers and acts of harassment committed against him. The applicant criticises, inter alia, the justification for the non-renewal of his contact, which was based on the elimination of his post following the reorganisation of the department. According to the applicant, that statement of reasons is vitiated by an error in so far as the reorganisation plans did not make provision for the elimination of a post corresponding to the characteristics of that occupied by the applicant. Moreover, he takes the view that he was the victim of psychological harassment and that the consequences of that harassment served to substantiate the decision not to renew his contract.
1.

First plea in law, alleging error in law and manifest error of assessment regarding the application of certain exceptions to the general rule to grant access to documents, in light of the facts at issue: — the request does not concern any case-file or investigative document, and therefore does not concern or affect the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision-making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); — the request should not be refused based on the protection of the purpose of investigations (Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No (EC) 1049/2001) or the Commission’s decision making process (Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); — the request does not concern any information or data of commercial interest that needs to be protected (Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001); — the contested decision applies exceptions for disclosure in a discriminatory fashion, as they are superseded by the Commission’s actions and conduct in other similar situations – this is prohibited by EU law; — the application of any exception for disclosure is superseded by an overriding public interest for disclosure in order to ensure an effective judicial review (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).
Action brought on 9 September 2019 – Canon v Commission

(Case T-609/19)

(2019/C 399/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: U. Soltész, W. Bosch, C. von Köckritz, K. Winkelmann, J. Schindler, D. Arts, W. Devroe, lawyers and M. Reynolds, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul European Commission decision C(2019) 4559 final of 27 June 2019 imposing fines for failing to notify a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) and for implementing a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Case M.8179 - Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation, Article 14(2) procedure), as notified to the applicant on 1 July 2019;

— in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on it;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

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 that the Commission committed a manifest error of law by misapplying the legal test for the assessment of Article 4(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. — It is argued that the Commission ignores the existing case-law by relying on an unprecedented and unsupported concept of ‘partial implementation of a single concentration’. In particular, the Commission’s assessment does not establish that the interim transaction in question contributed to a lasting change of control over the target in the way required by the case-law.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, although no intent or negligence on the part of the applicant was demonstrated, the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant in violation of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, the principle of nulla poena sine lege and legitimate expectations, the principle of proportionality and the principle of concurrent offences. The applicant therefore requests the Court to exercise its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and Article 261 TFEU to annul the decision regarding the fines entirely or reduce them significantly.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has violated essential procedural requirements. By denying the applicant the opportunity to comment on new arguments and facts/evidence in a formal reply to an additional supplementary statement of objections or letter of facts and during another oral hearing, it is argued that the Commission violated Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the applicant’s right of defence.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council. (1) — ACER is not empowered to establish a mechanism allowing the exclusion of internal network elements from the capacity calculation in the context of a pre-selection. — In its decision, ACER (i) defined the critical network elements, (ii) provided for a differentiated application of the Power-Transfer-Distribution-Factor (PTDF) value to internal network elements, on the one hand, and cross-zonal elements, on the other hand, and (iii) introduced a criterion of efficiency for the internal network elements. It thus infringes Article 16(4) and (8) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — In the contested decision, ACER provides that the bidding zone configuration must be revised according to a specific method and within a precise time-frame. That is contrary to Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — The transmission system operators are de facto required to maintain a minimum exchange capacity of 100 % available on their internal network elements and more for cross-border exchanges. That is contrary to Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — ACER wishes to exclude over the long-term internal lines which have a Power-Transfer-Distribution-Factor (PTDF) value lower than 10 % from the capacity calculation. That is contrary to Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — The introduction of a criterion of efficiency would circumvent the transitional provision of Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — The ACER decision infringes Article 14(5) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 since it does not take into account new investments in the network infrastructure. — ACER requires an extensive use of corrective actions. That is contrary to the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/943. — ACER circumvents the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2019/943 relating to the new configuration of bidding zones. — ACER claims competence in relation to the reorganisation of bidding zones and thus infringes Article 14(3), (6), (7) and (8) and Article 15(5) and (7) of Regulation (EU) 2019/943.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 26 September 2019 — IMG v Commission

(Case T-645/19)

(2019/C 399/101)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

consequently:

— annul the Commission Decision of 18 July 2019 establishing measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 31 January 2019 in Joined Cases C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, IMG v Commission (EU:C:2019:78);

— order the defendant to pay compensation for material and non-material harm;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU, infringement of the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of 31 January 2019, International Management Group v Commission (C-183/17 P and C-184/17 P, EU:C:2019:78), infringement of the 2012 Financial Regulation and infringement of the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of legal certainty.
—

Annul the decision of 30 November 2018 taken by the PMO concerning the way in which pension rights are to be calculated, and, in general, the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations on pension rights in respect of the applicant when she retires;