ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 19 May 2021 — Amort and Others v Commission

(Case T-267/21)

(2021/C 263/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Heidi Amort (Jenesien, Italy) and 22 other applicants (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested implementing decision as amended and supplemented.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The action against Commission Implementing Decision (C(2021) 1763 final) of 11 March 2021 granting a conditional marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 746/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the medicinal product for human use ‘COVID-10 Vaccine Janssen — COVID-19 Vaccine (Ad26.COV2-S [recombinant])’ is based on the following pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: the contested implementing decision infringes Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. (1) It has been scientifically proven that the worldwide panic resulting from the high mortality rate allegedly associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection is unfounded. In addition, the WHO and the EU should not have duly recognised the emergency situation as a public health threat.

2. Second plea in law: the contested implementing decision infringes Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 on account of: — the absence of a positive risk-benefit balance under Article 1(28a) of Directive 2001/83/EC; (2) — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, as it is unlikely that the applicant will be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data; — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006, as there is no medical need that can be met by the authorised medication; — the absence of the requirement under Article 4(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 507/2006.

3. Third plea in law: infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007, (3) of Directive 2001/83/EC and of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. (4)

4. Fourth plea in law: serious infringement of Articles 168 and 169 TFEU and of Articles 3, 35 and 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006 L 92, p. 6).

(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)

(3) Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products and amending Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 121).

(4) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 May 2021 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM)

(Case T-293/21)

(2021/C 278/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joachim Conze (Munich, Germany)

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: EU word mark ‘UM’ — EU trade mark No 9 305 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 in Case R 2260/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 6 August 2019 in so far as it was decided that EU trade mark No 9 305 731 is to remain registered for the other services, namely for: Class 44: Medical services in the field of hernia surgery;

— uphold the application for a declaration of revocation of EU trade mark No 9 305 731 in its entirety;

— thus declare EU trade mark No 9 305 731 to be revoked with effect from 20 June 2017 for all goods and services, namely for: Class 10: Surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus and instruments; artificial limbs, eyes and teeth; orthopaedic articles; suture materials; Class 41: Education and entertainment; providing of training; sporting and cultural activities; all of the aforesaid services being in the field of medical services; Class 42: Scientific and technological services and research and design relating thereto; industrial analysis and research services; design and development of computer hardware and software; all of the aforesaid services being in the field of medical services. Class 44: Medical services; veterinary services; hygienic and beauty care for human beings or animals; agriculture, horticulture and forestry services;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— The contested decision is vitiated by procedural errors of law: no effective representation of the other party; the submission made by the proprietor of the trade mark is out of time;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 May 2021 — Moio v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (moio.care)

(Case T-276/21)

(2021/C 278/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Moio GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: E. Grande García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark moio.care — Application for registration No 17 938 097

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 March 2021 in Case R 1034/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, in so far as it adversely affects the applicant;

— in the alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council was established in relation to the earlier EU mark No 16 395 055, ‘Molicare’;

— in the further alternative, annul the contested decision, in so far as a likelihood of confusion was established for the goods claimed in Class 5 and the goods Data processing equipment; Peripheral devices for data reproduction; Mobile apps; Mobile data receivers; Mobile data communications apparatus; Transmitters [telecommunication]; Sensory software; Telecommunications software in Class 9;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the basic regulation relating to the determination of dumping margins, incorrect identification of the ‘normal’ price of the goods under investigation and application of provisional duties not on account of the liability of the exporters but in reaction to the overall structure of the Chinese economy. — The applicants allege unlawfulness of the regulation on account of the fact that the Commission conducted an investigation that was incomplete and in any event led to an uncertain outcome; that outcome was also vitiated by the unlawfulness deriving from the regulation on the registration of goods, which is already the subject of an action before the Court, in so far as the Commission included goods codes (7610 90 90) in the investigation which, on its own admission, should not have been included as they relate to goods that are different to those subject to investigation. Such an error (having permitted the inclusion of different goods) eliminates both the dumping condition (in so far as the very low relative price inevitably and artificially reduces the average price) and the injury to the EU industry, as the quantities involved are significant in relation to the total volume of the goods, such as to render irrelevant the impact of the remaining part of the product imported into the European Union. — In the second place, the applicants submit that the absence of a specific determination of their situation is incompatible with the Treaty (and with the rules cited) in so far as it establishes a regime of strict or vicarious liability, which runs counter to the fundamental principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations by reason of market price and cost structure, manifestly of the market, produced by the applicants on several occasions to — and completely ignored by — the Commission (as the positions expressed on the market economy by the Chinese Government were similarly ignored). This has led to manifest unlawfulness, both as regards the substance (relating to the concepts of normal value, significant distortion, access to credit, tax regime, insolvency regime, representative countries and choice of those countries) and as regards procedure, set out at length in the present plea, resulting in a clear and detrimental discriminatory effect.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), Article 5(2) and Article 6(11) of the internal rules on the application of the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, and infringement of Articles 15(2) and 87(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. The applicant submits, in particular, that, by failing to take into account the absence of objectives set for 2019, the assessors disregarded the abovementioned provisions.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament, upon which the debit note was based, as a legal measure affecting the applicant, was adopted in breach of the principles of impartial and fair procedure, equality of arms and the applicant’s rights of defence: — The Parliament infringed the obligation to give reasons and the applicant’s right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) and (c) of the Charter by basing the contested decision on findings made by the General Court in a case in which the applicant was not involved and on which he did not have an opportunity to be heard; — The Parliament did not provide the applicant with the evidence on which it indirectly based the contested decision, nor did it provide the applicant with other information necessary to enable him properly to exercise his right to be heard (to submit observations), in breach of Article 41(2)(a) and (b) of the Charter.
—

in the alternative, annul the decisions of the Selection Board of 21 April 2021 and 14 January 2021 relating to the applicant and, in the judgment, provide the defendant with the necessary detailed guidelines for the lawful restoration of the applicant to his legal position prior to the infringement of his rights, which would enable the defendant to include the applicant in the reserve list, either immediately or after a reassessment of his performance; and annul the Addendum to the Notice of Competition EPSO/AD/374/19-1 of 5 November 2020; and the applicant’s invitation of 20 November 2020;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Plusmusic v EUIPO — Groupe Canal + (+music)

(Case T-344/21)

(2021/C 329/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Plusmusic AG (Dietikon, Suisse) (represented by: M. Maier and A. Spieß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Canal + (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark +music — Application for registration No 17 482 571

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 April 2021 in Case R 1236/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision insofar as it confirms the other party’s opposition on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) EURMR;

— order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the visual comparison of the signs;

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by erroneously assessing the distinctiveness of the earlier cross device marks;
The applicant, he argues, fully met all criteria for a promotion, in particular as he has performed well in his current role, has the ability and potential to perform at a higher level as confirmed to him on many occasions by his manager and has demonstrated motivation to work at a higher level, especially in consideration of the fact that he has continuously exercised corresponding higher level responsibilities. The defendant, it is said, has failed to motivate its decision not to promote the applicant. Such motivation can be found neither in the General Counsel’s decision nor in DG Personnel’s decision.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Delegated Regulation 2015/63 is unlawful: — on the ground that it infringes the principle of proportionality in so far as the calculation of the ex-ante contributions to the SRF, first, is not consistent with the objectives pursued by Regulation No 806/2014, second, does not take into account the fact that the applicant is a credit institution in run-off management which is covered by a State guarantee and in respect of which the SRF will theoretically never be called upon and, third, makes its orderly resolution more expensive; — on the ground that it infringes the principle of equal treatment in so far as it treats institutions in run-off management under State guarantee and operative institutions in the same way.
Action brought on 6 July 2021 — Bayerische Landesbank v SRB

(Case T-394/21)

(2021/C 349/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Landesbank (Munich, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

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

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Action brought on 12 July 2021 –Alauzun and Others v Commission and EMA

(Case T-418/21)

(2021/C 338/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Virginie Alauzun (Saint-Cannat, France) and 774 other applicants (represented by: F. Di Vizio, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission, European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s implementing decision of 31 May 2021 EMEA/H/C/005735/II/0030 on the grounds of infringement of essential procedural requirements and failure to state reasons in connection with the conditional marketing authorisation;

— in the alternative, annul the opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), delivered on 28 May 2021, by which the EMA recommended a conditional marketing authorisation for the vaccine Comirnaty, manufactured by BioNTech and Pfizer;

— order the EMA and the Commission to pay all of the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against the Commission Decision of 31 May 2021 amending the conditional marketing authorisation for the medicinal product for human use ‘Comirnaty — COVID-19 mRNA (nucleoside modified) vaccine’ granted by Decision C(2020) 9598(final), the applicants rely two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law alleging breach of essential procedural requirements and failure to state reasons. The applicants submit in this regard that the contested decisions do not demonstrate that the vaccine in question falls within the scope or meets the requirements of Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation No 507/2006. (1) In fact, according to the applicants, the conditional marketing authorisation in question does not meet the condition of the existence of an emergency or a life-threatening disease for the public concerned. The applicants add that the authorisation in question cannot be based on a positive benefit/risk balance or constitute a response to unmet medical needs. Finally, the applicants consider that the benefit to public health of the contested authorisation cannot outweigh the risk inherent in the fact that additional data are still required.

2. Second plea in law alleging infringement of the fundamental right to integrity of the person and of the fundamental right to life provided for in Articles 3 and 2 respectively of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006 of 29 March 2006 on the conditional marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2006. L 92, p. 6).
10.

Tenth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the principle of proportionality and the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender, by failing to make a significant adjustment to the basic amount of the Fine: (a) on the basis of § 37 of the Fining Guidelines and/or (b) on account of mitigating circumstances. As a result, the final amount of the Fine failed to reflect the objective differences in UniCredit’s situation compared with the situations of the other parties.
Action brought on 22 June 2021 — Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou and Others v Commission

(Case T-361/21)

(2021/C 357/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Syndesmos Tyrokomon Kyprou (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 11 other applicants (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s Implementing Regulation No 2021/591 of 12 April 2021 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Χαλλούμι’ (Halloumi)/‘Hellim’ (PDO)); (1) and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 defendant has conducted a manifest error of assessment on the conformity of the application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243 with the Regulation No 1151/2012. (2) It is argued that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 and failed to properly scrutinize the application for registration of ‘Halloumi’ as a PDO. (3)

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed Articles 10, 49 and 50 of Regulation No 1151/2012 by non-verifying the compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulation No 1151/2012.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because of the extreme duration of the procedure of registration.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested Regulation is insufficiently motivated. It is argued that the defendant infringed its obligation to state reasons pursuant to Article 296 of the TFEU and the right of the applicants to an effective remedy.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principle of good administration because the Cypriot Courts have annulled the internal national acts on which the contested Regulation is based.

(1) OJ 2021 L 125, p 42-51.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1-29.

(3) Protected Designation of Origin.