ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 8 April 2021 — Klymenko v Council

(Case T-195/21)

(2021/C 206/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Phelippeau, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the action of Mr Oleksandr Viktorovych Klymenko admissible;

in so far as concerns the applicant,

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings pursuant to Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action for annulment against Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/394 of 4 March 2021 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 29) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/391 of 4 March 2021 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2021 L 77, p. 2), in so far as those acts concern him, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons with particular regard to the reference in the acts to the justification of the measure and to the verifications carried out in relation to observance of the rights of the defence and effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea, alleging an error of assessment in the case and misuse of power, in that the applicant has provided evidence demonstrating the lack of a sufficient factual basis such as to ground any criminal proceedings as well as evidence of the violation of fundamental rights, from which the Council fails to draw any conclusions.

3. Third plea, alleging violation of fundamental rights, in particular of observance of the rights of the defence, of the right to effective judicial protection and of the right to equality of arms.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants have an obligation to act pursuant to the treaties of the EU, in particular under Article 207 TFEU, the ground on which the European Union acceded to the ICAC, which provides that the common commercial policy shall be conducted in the context of the principles and objectives of the Union’s external action. The Commission has an obligation under Articles 314 and 317 TFEU and must comply with the interests, values and principles pursuant to Article 3 TEU and the Charter.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 March 2021 — Magnetec v EUIPO (Light blue)

(Case T-168/21)

(2021/C 217/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Magnetec GmbH (Langenselbold, Germany) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and D. Habel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU colour mark (Light blue) — Application for registration No 18 022 608

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 January 2021 in Case R 217/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 49(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 33 thereof;
1.

The first plea in law is based on the claim that the defendant did not establish that the conditions for refusing access to the requested documents were fulfilled in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. Disclosure of the requested documents could not lead to the undermining of the protection of the purpose of investigations, as invoked by the defendant. The defendant did not establish that in the present case granting access to the documents, whose content is actually already partially in the public domain, would pose any risk of specific and actual harm to that investigation, let alone that such a risk is reasonably foreseeable.
Action brought on 6 April 2021 — Covington & Burling and Van Vooren v Commission

(Case T-201/21)

(2021/C 217/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Covington & Burling (Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgium) and Bart Van Vooren (Meise, Belgium) (represented by: P. Diaz Gavier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 March 2021 refusing to grant access to the requested documents (1) under the Transparency Regulation;

— order the Commission to grant access to the requested documents immediately; and

— order the Commission to pay Covington’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation (2) to justify its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that, even if Article 4(3), second indent, of the Transparency Regulation applied, or any other ground of Article 4 thereof, the Commission has failed to demonstrate how the requested documents met the requirements.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on the Comitology Regulation (3) to support its refusal to grant access to the requested documents.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in relying on Standard Rules of Procedure for Committees to support its refusal; and

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates general principles of transparency and undermines the democratic legitimacy of implementing acts.

(1) Editorial note: The requested documents concern a comitology procedure and, in particular, documents relating to the voting record of certain Member States with regard to the draft Commission Regulation amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(3) Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13).
—

with regard to other rights: — declare that the applicants should have been recruited as temporary agents by one of the first three defendants and declare that the first three defendants treated the applicants unlawfully and in a discriminatory manner, without objective justification, as regards their remuneration, pension rights and related benefits, and the guarantee of future employment; — order the first three defendants to compensate each of the applicants for the damage suffered as a result of the non-application of the remuneration, pension rights, allowances and benefits arising from the application of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, caused by the unlawful unequal treatment; — order them to pay interest on those sums; — set a time limit for the parties to assess that compensation, taking account of the grade and step in which the applicants should have been respectively recruited, the average increase in their remuneration, the development of their respective careers, the allowances which they should then have received under those contracts of temporary agents, and compare the results obtained with the remuneration actually received by the applicants;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that SAS AB is eligible for the aid and by failing to assess whether there were other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also complains that the defendant misapplied the Temporary framework for State aid measures to support the economy in the current COVID-19 outbreak and Article 107(3) (b) TFEU by finding that the amount of recapitalisation was proportionate, by failing to apply proper conditions regarding the exit of the State, by failing to properly assess the beneficiary’s significant market power and apply corresponding remedies, by failing to prevent aggressive commercial expansion, by violating its obligation to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’), and, finally, by requiring the late submission of a restructuring plan.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 27 April 2021 — Retail Royalty v EUIPO — Fashion Energy (Device of an eagle)

(Case T-226/21)

(2021/C 228/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Retail Royalty Co. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fashion Energy Srl (Milano, 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 (Device of an eagle) — European Union trade mark No 5 066 113

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 in Case R 2813/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 58(1)(a), 58(2) and 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and Article 19(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 in conjunction with Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Armadora Parleros v Commission

(Case T-254/21)

(2021/C 252/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Armadora Parleros, SL (Santa Eugenia de Ribeira, Spain) (represented by: J. Navas Marqués, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the European Commission has infringed Article 118 of Regulation No 1224/2009 regulating the common fisheries policy (CFP), through a failure to act, by not carrying out an adequate control and monitoring as to whether that regulation has been correctly applied by the Kingdom of Spain, which may constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L.;

— declare that the infringement by the Commission has caused damage to the applicant ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L., consisting in loss of profit from mackerel and hake fishing during the period from 2006 to 2020;

— order the European Commission to pay the commercial entity ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L. the sum of NINE MILLION, EIGHT HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FOUR EURO AND SIXTY-ONE CENTS (EUR 9 881 434,61) as compensation for damage, together with interest at the statutory rates, and capitalisation of the above interest;

— order the European Commission to pay all the legal costs incurred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant effectively complains of illegal conduct on the part of the European Commission. That relates, in particular, to the Commission’s failure to carry out its duty of monitoring and control regarding the Kingdom of Spain in relation to the effective application of the CFP, and specifically of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 1). Particular reference is made in that respect to ‘the failure to verify the engine power of the trawlers which operate in the waters of the Cantabrian and North-western regions’.

As a result of that failure to act, the applicant suffered damage between 2006 and 2020 due to the fact that it was not possible to make use of the vessel ‘Vianto Tercero’ which, due to an incorrect application of the CFP, had to be scrapped and, consequently, became completely unusable. That caused financial loss to the company ARMADORA PARLEROS, S.L.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 May 2021 — Pejovič v EUIPO — ETA živilska industrija (RENČKI HRAM)

(Case T-284/21)

(2021/C 278/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Edvin Pejovič (Pobegi, Slovenia) (represented by: U. Pogačnik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ETA živilska industrija d.o.o. (Kamnik, Slovenia)

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 RENČKI HRAM — European Union trade mark No 15 297 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2021 in Case R 1050/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present application;

— reform the contested decision in such manner to uphold the applicant’s appeal and reform the decision issued in cancellation procedure No. 34 709 C of 12 May 2020 in such manner to uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested trade mark RENČKI HRAM and to declare the contested trade mark invalid in its entirety;

— in the alternative, to annul the contested decision;

— remit the case back to the EUIPO for further deliberation;

— order EUIPO to pay all costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) Infringement of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
1.

The German aid scheme ‘Bundesregelung Fixkostenhilfe 2020’ approved by the defendant is incompatible with the internal market, as it distorts competition without that being exceptionally justified in the present case. The defendant made a manifest error of assessment by deciding that an aid scheme requiring a company-wide decrease in turnover of at least 30 % was compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The application of the aid scheme at the level of the company would make companies, such as the applicant, which have several business areas that have been affected to varying degrees by the COVID-19 pandemic, with the store-based business having sustained a loss in turnover significantly exceeding 30 % due to closure, ineligible to apply solely because another business area does not sustain any losses in turnover and the calculation of an arithmetic mean of the turnover of different business areas leads to the 30 % threshold not being reached. Consequently, those companies, unlike companies with only one business area, might receive aid only for a fraction of the eligible period or none at all and would have to cross-finance the uncovered fixed costs of their closed business area from their other business areas. That leads to a distortion in competition both in relation to competitors in the business area affected by the pandemic and in relation to competitors in the business area unaffected by the pandemic.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 1 June 2021 — Classen Holz Kontor v EUIPO — Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (DRYTILE)

(Case T-307/21)

(2021/C 289/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Classen Holz Kontor GmbH (Kaisersesch, Germany) (represented by: M. Bergermann and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deutsche Steinzeug Cremer & Breuer AG (Alfter, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘DRYTILE’ — Application for registration No 17 999 950

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2021 in Case R 1226/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 May 2021 — Joules v EUIPO — Star Gold (Jules Gents)

(Case T-294/21)

(2021/C 278/92)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Joules Ltd (Market Harborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Martini-Berthon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Star Gold GmbH (Pforzheim, Germany)

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 figurative mark Jules Gents — Application for registration No 15 719 305

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 1123/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including the costs of proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 71(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

— Infringement of Articles 71(1) and 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not adequately ensure observance of the applicant’s fundamental rights and breaches the principle of proportionality — The Commission did not take into account, in the contested decision, the economic significance of the free allocation of emission allowances for the applicant, which also affects employment in the applicant’s business and economic development in the long term, but even the applicant’s competitiveness compared to other market players providing the equivalent product. The Commission did not sufficiently take into account the principle of proportionality, which requires the adoption of transitional provisions when a certain player is burdened by higher costs than other players on the same market.
Action brought on 27 May 2021 — ABOCA and Others v Commission

(Case T-302/21)

(2021/C 289/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: ABOCA SpA Società Agricola (Sansepolcro, Italy), Coswell SpA (Funo di Argelato, Italy), Associação portuguesa de suplementos alimentares (Apard) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Kelly, Solicitor, K. Ewert, lawyer, D. Scannell, and C. Thomas, Barristers-at-law)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should annul the Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/468 of 18 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards botanical species containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives (1) (‘the contested Regulation’), in full or (alternatively) in part, and order the payment of their costs by the Commission.

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 Commission’s decision to proceed under Regulation (EC) 1925/2006 (the ‘Additions Regulation’) is unlawful: — The contested Regulation’s use of the word ‘preparations’ appears to seek to prohibit the use of whole–plant ingredients and natural botanical extracts as foods. The Additions Regulation does not provide the Commission the power to ban foodstuffs. — The Commission should have followed the stricter procedure and legal test under Directive 2002/46/EC.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is legally uncertain: — The applicants cannot determine if their products are subject to additional scrutiny under Article 1(2) of the contested Regulation because the meaning of ‘preparations’ in the context of the Additions Regulation is unclear. — The relationship between the two articles of the Additions Regulation is unclear. — In any event, the contested Regulation breaches the principle of non-discrimination by targeting the applicants’ products and not the many food products, which also contain HADs in similar quantities.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the 2017 analysis of the European Food Safety Agency (‘EFSA’) is not capable of satisfying the legal test required under the Additions Regulation: — The applicable legal test requires an identifiable harmful effect on human health to place the relevant substances in the Annex to the Additions Regulation. — EFSA’s conclusions did not identify a harmful effect on human health. — The Commission’s approach is disproportionate because it does not meet the test of ‘necessity’ set out in the Additions Regulation. — The Commission did not consider data published since 2017, which demonstrates no harmful effect on human health from consuming the relevant substances.

(1) OJ 2021, L 96, p. 6.
1.

First plea in law, alleging the annulment of the defendant’s decision and recovery order Ref. ARES(2021)1955613 due to infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers, particularly improper legal evaluation of facts and findings (breach of right of defence, breach of right to good administration, breach of principle of proportionality, principle of legal certainty, rule of law, principle of legal expectations and non-retroactivity, improper legal evaluation of facts and findings of the Audit 12-INFS-024 and follow-up Audit 15-NR01-044).