ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 293/39

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

(Case T-443/17)

(2017/C 293/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: António Conde & Companhia, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision refusal to forward promptly to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the names of the Portuguese-licensed vessels SANTA ISABEL and CALVÃO, thus preventing them from operating, as from 1 July 2017, in the fishing zones of the North-East Atlantic, in order to fish for redfish and shrimp, and thereby infringing Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 (1);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant has acted in breach of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 by interfering in the process of drafting or communication of the list of vessels drawn up by Portugal for forwarding to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The defendant is not entitled to comment upon, amend, make recommendations regarding, assess, deny, draft or put pressure on the Member States in respect of such lists.

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (OJ 2010 L 348, p. 17).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/37

Action brought on 26 July 2017 — VKR Holding v EUIPO (VELUX)

(Case T-465/17)

(2017/C 309/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: VKR Holding A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: J. Heebøll, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘VELUX’ — Recordal application No T 2 299 611

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2017 in Case R 1927/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— overturn the decision of the Board to dismiss the appeal and thereby allow recordal request no. T 2 299 611 relating to EUTM 000651869 (VELUX),

— alternatively, refer the case back to the Board.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have manifestly erred in considering that any of the criteria for listing in the contested measures were fulfilled in the applicant’s case; there is no factual basis for its inclusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/14

Action brought on 3 August 2017 — Fidesban and Others v SRB

(Case T-484/17)

(2017/C 330/18)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fidesban, SA (Madrid, Spain) and 69 other applicants (represented by: R. Pelayo Jiménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 (SRB/EES/2017/08);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those alleged in Case T-478/17, Mutualidad General de la Abogacía and Others v Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/40

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Cartera de Inversiones Melca and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-509/17)

(2017/C 347/52)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Cartera de Inversiones Melca, SL (Avilés, Spain), Servicios Inmobiliarios Avilés, SL (Avilés), Hotel Avilés, SA (Avilés), Arside Construcciones Mecánicas, SA (Carreño, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

— Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/43

Action brought on 17 August 2017 — Staropilsen v EUIPO — Pivovary Staropramen (STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN)

(Case T-556/17)

(2017/C 347/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Staropilsen s. r. o. (Pilsen, Czech Republic) (represented by: A. Kodrasová, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pivovary Staropramen s. r. o. (Prague, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘STAROPILSEN; STAROPLZEN’ — EU trade mark No 9 034 893

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2017 in Case R 236/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— cancel the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 26(2) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors. (1) — The applicant claims in this regard that the Commission made a manifest error in finding a failure to check the criterion of recognition of the producers organisation’s main activity, inasmuch as that check is ensured by the adequate checking of the value of the production marketed. — It is also claimed that the Commission infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, in that the Commission’s finding was inconsistent with the earlier finding in investigation FV/2010/004.
—

annul the calculation note of 10 November 2016 which was sent to him by the EEAS human resources department as well as, to the extent necessary, the email of 24 October 2016 by which that department indicated to him that he is not eligible for reimbursement of the education costs of his two children above the ceiling set out in Article 15 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials since he is being reassigned;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/17

Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-476/17)

(2017/C 357/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested Regulation (1);

— order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment. — The applicant submits that: the defendant has committed a series of manifest errors of appraisal; the defendant has acted unreasonably by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific to the unique case of diflubenzuron; the defendant has neither considered the timing of two regulatory procedures nor the available and new data; the defendant has failed to examine carefully and impartially all the individual elements and factors of this case.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of right of defence: the defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was able to present properly and effectively its own views throughout the review process.

3. Third plea in law, alleging adoption of the contested Regulation Ultra Vires: the defendant acted ultra vires since the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) is the only authority legally responsible for classification or re-classification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008 (2), and not the defendant.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging disproportion of the contested Regulation: the contested Regulation is disproportionate since the defendant had a choice of measures and the choice of adopting the contested Regulation restricting the use of diflubenzuron to non-edible crop causes disadvantages which are excessive in relation to the aims pursued.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017, L 128, p. 10).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008, L 353, p. 1).
—

order the European Parliament to pay to Mylène Troszczynski the amount of EUR 35 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage which she has suffered;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/35

Action brought on 5 September 2017 — Thun v EUIPO (Figurine representing a fish)

(Case T-604/17)

(2017/C 369/49)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: B. Giordano, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design at issue: Community design — (Figurine representing a fish) — Application for registration No 336 805-0059

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2017 in Case R 1680/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the application for restitutio in integrum;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 369/33

Action brought on 30 August 2017 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-589/17)

(2017/C 369/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, J. Shirran and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones agents, D. Arts, lawyer and T. Cusworth, solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on Syria the order:

— for payment of all sums due to it under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement, comprising: — 820 451,35 euro, being the amount due to it as at 25 August 2017, which is all principal, interest and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 25 August 2017); — further contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), until payment is made; — all applicable legal costs, charges and expenses arising in connection with the conclusion and execution of the Loan Agreement, including costs related to the present proceedings.

— In any event, for payment of the amount due to it for instalments which will fall due after the date of this application and for which Syria fails to make a payment, comprising: — all principal and interest for each instalment; — contractual default interest, accruing at the annual rate of 3,5 % (350 basis points), from the due date of each instalment until payment is made by Syria.

— For payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that Syria is in default of its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of the instalments under the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, and under Article 3.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, Syria is obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02, 4.01, 9.01 and 9.02 of the Aleppo — Tall Kojak Road Project Special Term Loan Agreement.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Article 85 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, upon which the appointing authority based itself, is manifestly inapplicable in the present case. In the applicant’s view, the recovery of undue payments is subject to two cumulative conditions: first, the payment which the administration seeks to recover must have been irregular, and second, the member of staff must have been aware of that irregularity or the irregularity must have been so obvious that the member of staff could not have failed to be aware of it, which is clearly not the case here.
—

Consequently, annul the decision of the European Commission to regard the fact that the economic activities of the Belgian ports, and in particular the Walloon ports, are not subject to corporate tax as State aid incompatible with the internal market;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 382/56

Action brought on 21 September 2017 — Helibética v Commission and SRB

(Case T-638/17)

(2017/C 382/69)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Helibética, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R. Vallina Hoset and A. Lois Perreau de Pinninck, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 concerning the adoption of a resolution scheme in respect of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Annul Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme of Banco Popular Español, S.A.;

— Where appropriate, declare Articles 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and/or 24 of Regulation No 806/2014 inapplicable, in accordance with Article 277 TFEU;

— Order SRB and the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
—

Additionally, in accordance with Articles 133 and 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, order the defendants and the parties intervening in full or partial support of the form of order sought by them to pay the costs.
5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in finding the State aid compatible with the internal market, in view of the fact that the proposed restructuring plan does not provide sufficient guarantees that Areva will be able to deliver on the timely completion of the OL3 Project, thus running contrary to certain other EU Treaty objectives which should have been taken in account when examining the compatibility of the State aid.
—

in the alternative, declare that the contested decisions do not constitute legally binding acts as regards the applicant in its action for damages brought against the Emberi Erőforrások Minisztériuma (Ministry of Human Resources, Hungary) in Case No 66. P. 22.195/2017 before the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary), and that, for that reason, the applicant is not directly and individually concerned, since it bases its claim for damages on the infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, and not on the infringement of Article 107(3) TFEU;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 424/54

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Temes Rial and Others v SRB

(Case T-705/17)

(2017/C 424/78)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Enrique Manuel Temes Rial (Vilagarcía de Arousa, Spain), Jon Nuñes Baracaldo (Erandio Astraburua, Spain), Maria Luisa Muniente Pallas (Madrid, Spain), Alfonso Velasco Nieto (Madrid) and Gloria María Zarco Martínez (Guarnizo el Astillero, Spain) (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer).

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which that decision is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/20

Action brought on 13 October 2017 — Spinoit v Commission and Others

(Case T-711/17)

(2018/C 013/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Spinoit (Charleroi, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present application admissible and well-founded;

accordingly,

— annul the undated decision signed electronically on 3 August 2017, entitled ‘Request for replacement of senior expert No 3 of contract ENPI/2016/381-920 SOFRECO “Technical assistance recruitment for the programme to support the implementation of the Association Agreement (P3A III)”’;

— declare that full compensation is necessary for the material and non-material damage caused to the claimant by the serious violation of the right to good administration consisting in the adoption of the undated decision signed electronically on 3 August 2017, entitled ‘Request for replacement of senior expert No 3 of contract ENPI/2016/381-920 SOFRECO “Technical assistance recruitment for the programme to support the implementation of the Association Agreement (P3A III)”’;

— order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the applicant the amount of EUR 209 950,00 for material damage and the amount of 15 000,00 for non-material damage;

in any event,

— order the defendants to pay the entirety of the costs;

— reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas in law and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, to the extent that, first, the applicant had not been heard prior to the adoption of the contested decision and had not had access to the file concerning him and, second, the reasoning contained in that decision did not allow the applicant to understand the facts alleged against him.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/46

Action brought on 5 October 2017 — Vendrell Marti v SRB

(Case T-687/17)

(2018/C 005/62)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Pedro Vendrell Marti (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Martínez Martínez and C. López-Mélida de Ramón, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB/EES/2017/08) and the independent expert’s valuation on which it is based in accordance with Article 20(15) of Regulation No 806/2014;

— Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;

— Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/56

Action brought on 23 November 2017 — Kiku v CPVO — Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Pinova)

(Case T-765/17)

(2018/C 022/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Kiku GmbH (Girlan, Italy) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie (Dresden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Proprietor of the contested plant varieties: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Plant variety at issue: Plant variety right for the apple variety ‘PINOVA’ — Certificate No EU 1298

Procedure before the CPVO: Nullity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 16 August 2017 in Case A005/2016

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the CPVO to pay the costs.

Plea in law