ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 10 June 2019 — Poggiolini v Parliament

(Case T-348/19)

(2019/C 263/62)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Danilo Poggiolini (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sorrentino and A. Sandulli, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested note and order the European Parliament to pay him the sums unduly withheld while the proceedings are pending.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against Note D (2019) 14435 of 11 April 2019 of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance, concerning the redetermination of the pension which the applicant receives as a former Member of the European Parliament.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-347/19, Falqui v European Parliament.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 June 2019 — adp Gauselmann v EUIPO — Gameloft (City Mania)

(Case T-381/19)

(2019/C 270/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Lübbecke, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gameloft SE (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark City Mania — Application for registration No 15 936 339

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 in Case R 976/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the ground of appeal to be founded and annul the contested decision, declare the existence of likelihood of confusion between the trade marks in dispute, and accordingly, order the complete rejection of the requested trade mark;

— order EUIPO and the opposing party, should it appear in the proceedings before the General Court, to bear the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

By the second plea in law, the applicant claims that there is no legal basis for the contested act and that there was an error of law in the interpretation of Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament — The applicant claims in that regard that the contested act erroneously refers to Annex II to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament and Article 75 of the Implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. The pension scheme provided for by those rules expired on 14 July 2009, with the entry into force of the Statute for Members of the European Parliament. Article 75 of the Statute, which refers to Annex III to the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament, does not authorise the European Parliament to adopt measures such as that contested.
1.

First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of the principle of equal treatment. In that regard, the applicants claim that they are directly and heavily penalised by the provisions which the contested decision implements owing to the calculation methods of both the basic contribution and of the risk factor as defined therein. According to the applicants, those criteria do not reflect their actual size or their real risk. The manifest infringement of the principle of equality stemming directly from the provisions is moreover enhanced by the different treatment of large institutions, which include the applicants, as compared with small and medium institutions.
Action brought on 15 July 2019 — DH v Commission

(Case T-507/19)

(2019/C 295/110)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: DH (represented by: E. Bonanni, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 13 September 2018 for failing to provide for the possibility of objecting to the appointment of Dr X in connection with the possible procedure before the newly established Medical Committee and, accordingly, provide for another independent medical practitioner to be appointed for the procedures relating to Cases T-308/19 and T-316/19, providing prompt notification thereof;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 500 000 or such other amount as the Court shall deem fair;

— order the Commission to inform the Court and/or the applicant, as requested in application D/462/17, of the identity of the doctor appointed by the Medical Committee who consulted the applicant’s file in full and, while remaining anonymous, gave a negative opinion on a request for reimbursement in respect of medical care requiring prior authorisation submitted by the applicant in the context of Article 10 of the Common Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Union against the risk of accident and of occupational disease (‘the Common Rules’);

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that, in the present case, there has been conduct that is inconsistent with professional and ethical practices in connection with the renewal of the Medical Committee.

As regards the harm the applicant claims to have suffered, the applicant claims that there has been delay to the proceedings and that the conduct of the doctor in question was inconsistent with professional and ethical practices. He also claims that there have been acts detrimental to the honour and dignity of the victim and unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission, taking into account the fact that the chain of events giving rise to the present action began with the applicant’s request of 7 June 2000 for recognition of aggravation of his occupational illness and with judgments against the Commission in two cases: T-212/01 and T-551/16.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 August 2019 — Isigny-Sainte Mère v EUIPO (Shape of a golden container with a type of wave)

(Case T-546/19)

(2019/C 312/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Isigny-Sainte Mère (Isigny-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a golden container with a type of wave) — Application for registration No 17 871 521

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 in Case R 1513/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

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

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity. The applicant submits in that respect that her decision to continue her role within EASA in 2017 was based on the confirmation by the EASA Human Resources Department that this continuation would also ensure the continuation of the conditions relating to her pension rights acquired within EFSA.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 July 2019 — Heitec v EUIPO — Hetec Datensysteme (HEITEC)

(Case T-520/19)

(2019/C 312/35)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Heitec AG (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: G. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hetec Datensysteme GmbH (Germering, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HEITEC — EU trade mark No 774 331

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2019 in Case R 1171/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 August 2019 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a braided cheese)

(Case T-572/19)

(2019/C 328/84)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi Ve Ticaret AȘ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional EU mark in black and white (Shape of a braided cheese) — Application for registration No 17 912 292

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 in Case R 108/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul Article 3 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/807 of 13 March 2019, supplementing Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the determination of high indirect land-use change-risk feedstock for which a significant expansion of the production area into land with high carbon stock is observed and the certification of low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels and its Annex;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 August 2019 – Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO – Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)

(Case T-548/19)

(2019/C 337/14)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki AE (Glyfada, Greece) (represented by: V. Oikonomidis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Motor Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

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 figurative mark in colours white, black and blue ONDA 1962 – Application for registration No 15 419 559

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2019 in Case R 2384/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision in its entirety, so that the appeal is upheld and the opposition is entirely rejected;

— order that the defendant bears all costs arising from or relevant to the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal and present proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law

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

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 26 July 2019 – TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-534/19)

(2019/C 363/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith QC)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 20 May 2019, refusing to revoke or amend Commission Implementing Decision 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018; (1)

— order the defendant 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 an error of law in that the Commission conducted its assessment of the maize in question in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of scientific assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission unlawfully failed to request an event-specific post-marketing monitoring plan.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/2046 of 19 December 2018 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize MON 87427 × MON 89034 × 1507 × MON 88017 × 59122, and genetically modified maize combining two, three or four of the single events MON 87427, MON 89034, 1507, MON 88017 and 59122 and repealing Decision 2011/366/EU (notified under document C (2018) 8238) (OJ 2018 L 327, p. 70).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 641/2004 of 6 April 2004 on detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the application for the authorisation of new genetically modified food and feed, the notification of existing products and adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of genetically modified material which has benefited from a favourable risk evaluation (OJ 2004 L 102, p. 14).
—

annul the Commission’s decision of 7 November 2018 not to allocate the applicant the severance grant provided for under Article 12(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) by the Appointing Authority inasmuch as it did not actually carry out an examination of the comparative merits of all the officials eligible for promotion.
Action brought on 16 September 2019 – ArcelorMittal Bremen v Commission

(Case T-623/19)

(2019/C 363/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: ArcelorMittal Bremen GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and L. Buschmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

— declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the Commission infringed the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU (1) by failing to decide on the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension of the product benchmark sub-installation for hot metal of the installation (Installation ID 60) in Bremen, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019;

— alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 July 2019 on the applicant’s request of 12 April 2019;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant submits that the Commission is obliged to adopt a decision pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 19(4) of Decision 2011/278/EU and not to reject the total annual amount of emission allowances allocated free of charge for a significant capacity extension, communicated to it by the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 April 2019, since the requirements for a significant capacity extension within the meaning of Article 20(1) of Decision 2011/278/EU are met.

(1) Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, infringement of Articles 12 and 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a failure to observe the duty to provide assistance and misuse of powers.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 October 2019 – Novomatic v EUIPO – Brouwerij Haacht (PRIMUS)

(Case T-669/19)

(2019/C 399/113)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brouwerij Haacht NV (Boortmeerbeek, Belgium)

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 PRIMUS – Application for registration No 14 712 723

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 July 2019 in Case R 2528/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear its own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the Plaintiff in the proceeding in front of the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of essential procedural requirements, namely the requirement of evidence in terms of legal certainty;

— Infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations;

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 September 2019 – Sun Stars & Sons v EUIPO – Valvis Holding (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-638/19)

(2019/C 399/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: M. Maček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valvis Holding SA (Bucharest, Romania)

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 tridimensional mark (Shape of a bottle) – Application for registration No 14 979 942

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in Case R 649/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred to Sun Stars & Sons Pte Ltd.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;
Action brought on 23 September 2019 – DD v FRA

(Case T-632/19)

(2019/C 406/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DD (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the applicant compensation for the non-material prejudice suffered, as detailed in the present action, estimated, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 100 000;

— annul the decision of the director of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) of 19 November 2018 rejecting the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;

— if need be, annul the decision of the FRA director of 12 June 2019, rejecting the applicant’s complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations directed by the applicant against the abovementioned decision of 19 November 2018;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant did not hear the applicant and did not adopt a decision pursuant to Article 3 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations following the judgment of 8 October 2015 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Joined Cases F-106/13 and F-25/14, DD v European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EU:F:2015:118).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the administrative enquiry and the initial disciplinary proceedings were opened irregularly.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to compensate the applicant in respect of the non-material prejudice resulting from the decision of reprimand annulled by the Civil Service Tribunal in the abovementioned judgment.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to implement the abovementioned judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal and conduct the pre-disciplinary procedure within a reasonable time and with due diligence.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the opening and the conduct of the administrative inquiry violated Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, (1) the EU Staff Regulations and the right to private life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the defendant repeatedly made unfounded, defamatory and offensive statements about the applicant which amount to violations of the principle of res judicata, of the presumption of innocence and of the duty of care.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties and every rule of law concerning the application of the latter, that is to say the body of rules of the European Union, and, in particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles, the observance of which the European Union is obliged to ensure and which protect the right to protect one’s personal image, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to dignity.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the invoked ground for termination is not applicable and EASME’s termination is thus invalid: — EASME has terminated the Grant Agreement citing no other basis for its decision than a provision, according to which the Grant Agreement may be terminated if ‘the beneficiary, or a natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of professional misconduct, proven by any means’. — As neither the beneficiary, i.e. VERIGRAFT, nor any natural person who has the power to represent or take decisions on its behalf, has been found guilty of any professional misconduct, this ground is not applicable and the termination is thus invalid.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Conclusion No 273/15 of 25 February 2016 of the Board of Heads of Administration on medical examination following retirement on grounds of invalidity, in so far as it provides that the institution’s doctor may, exceptionally, accept a report prepared by the attending physician or defer the examination if the nature of the condition that gave rise to the invalidity does not justify an examination to assess the possibility of returning to work.