ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/22

Action brought on 10 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

(Case T-27/14)

2014/C 85/38

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and T. Müller, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the European Commission’s call C(2013)7221 final of 4 November 2013 for the withdrawal of the decision of the Ministerstvo průmyslu a obchodu České republiky (Czech Ministry of Trade and Industry), which grants a derogation to the gas storage facilities in Dambořice from the national legislation implementing the provisions of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) on the rules for the access of third parties and

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266(1) TFEU — In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested decision, proceeded in a manner directly contrary to the judgment in Case T-465/11 Globula v Commission [2013] ECR.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC — In this plea, the applicant submits that the Commission adopted the contested decision after the expiry of the time-limit set in Article 22(4) of Directive 2003/55/EC.

(1) Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has failed to state reasons for the contested decision as required by Article 296 TFEU because the Commission has not explained why the different treatment of similar situations does not constitute State aid. Further, the reasoning put forward by the Commission is contradictory on the face of the contested decision.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the cost of production calculated in the Contested Regulation has been adjusted in a way that is manifestly erroneous, in breach of Article 2(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (11) and (12) of the basic regulation. The EU institutions have applied an upward adjustment under a methodology which when followed yields an adjustment lower than the one disclosed by the Commission. The adjustment also includes items that should not be included in the cost of production of the Applicant. The dumping margin calculated on the basis of this erroneous methodology breaches Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation.
—

In the alternative, the applicant relies on the fact that, in the proceedings at issue, the Commission departed materially from the methodology of the Guidelines on fines. It thus failed to have regard to the fact that it was bound by its own guidelines and thereby exceeded the bounds of its discretion. Furthermore, in this particular case, the Commission arbitrarily set the fines imposed on the participants, and granted the main participants and instigators of the overall cartel identified by the Commission greater reductions than it granted the applicant, contrary to its own findings regarding the respective gravity of the infringements.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/58

Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Aceitera General Deheza v Council

(Case T-115/14)

2014/C 112/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aceitera General Deheza SA (General Deheza, Argentina) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 in Case R 1335/2013-4;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/57

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — EE v OHIM (Device of an ivory dotted pattern)

(Case T-144/14)

2014/C 135/75

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2014 given in Case R 705/2013-1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark representing a device of an ivory pattern for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 16, 25, 35-39, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 388 493

Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.
1.

First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, since contradictory information was brought to the applicant’s knowledge concerning the amount of the successful tender for Lot No 1. The applicant submits that: — the amount of the tender of the successful tenderer, referred to in the Commission’s letter dated 11 December 2013 informing the applicant of the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, is inaccurate because it is too low. In that case, the applicant did not have access to sure information on the price of the successful tender, which infringes the obligation to state reasons; or — the value of the contract awarded, contained in the contract award notice published on 24 December 2013, (1) is incorrect because it is too high. In that case the contract award notice does not reflect the value of the successful tender, which constitutes a breach of the obligation of transparency; or — the amount of the successful tender as stated in the Commission’s letter of 11 December 2013 and the value of the contract as stated in the contract award notice are correct. In that case, the contract was awarded for an amount greater than the successful tender, which constitutes a serious infringement of the principles of transparency, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/34

Action brought on 31 March 2014 — Bopp v OHIM (Representation of an octagonal green frame)

(Case T-209/14)

2014/C 151/44

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Carsten Bopp (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by C. Russ, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 January 2014 in Case R 1276/2013-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing an octagonal green frame for services in Class 35 — application No 8 248 965

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/45

Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)

(Case T-166/14)

2014/C 142/58

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: PRS Mediterranean Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Richmond, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEOWEB’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 6 184 568

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various national trademarks of the word mark ‘GEOWEB’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 and the non-registered mark ‘GEOWEB’ used in the course of trade in all Member States of the European Union

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal proceedings

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/33

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council

(Case T-157/14)

2014/C 159/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai, Chine); Yangzhou JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Yangzhou, Chine); Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Hefei, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai); and JA Solar GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/37

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Mammoet Salvage v Commission

(Case T-234/14)

2014/C 184/59

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Mammoet Salvage BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kuypers and A. Schadd, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— primarily, rule that the European Union and/or the European Commission failed to act;

— in the alternative, order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay the amounts owed to the applicant;

— in the further alternative, order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay compensation to the applicant for the harm suffered;

— in all three cases, stay the proceedings, pursuant to Article 77 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, until three months after the applicant has received the arbitration decision;

— order the European Union and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the extrajudicial expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2010, the applicant secured a tender for the removal of 74 shipwrecks from a harbour in Mauritania within the framework of the European Development Fund. The contract, which was concluded between Mauritania and the applicant, was, with regard to the financing, endorsed by the Ambassador and Head of the European Union delegation in Mauritania on behalf of the European Commission. While the defendant did not, through that endorsement, become a party to the contract, it assumed the obligation to pay for the works carried out.

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

1. First plea in law, alleging failure to act on the part of the defendant. The contract between the applicant and Mauritania contains a provision stipulating that the European Union’s payment obligations end at the latest 18 months after the expiry of the period set for performance of the works. The applicant lodged a request on 4 December 2013 with Mauritania and the European Union delegation for an extension of that deadline. The defendant failed to respond to that request to act.

2. Second plea in law, based on the endorsement of the financing of the contract by the European Commission. The applicant is of the view that the works have been completed, and claims that the Court should order the defendant to pay the outstanding invoices, corresponding to the remaining amounts payable to the applicant in respect of the works which it carried out.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 175/51

Action brought on 10 April 2014 — Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe)

(Case T-222/14)

2014/C 175/70

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Deluxe Laboratories, Inc (Burbank, United States) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2014 in Case R 1250/2013-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘deluxe’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 11 253 044

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/34

Action brought on 15 April 2014 — Commission v McCarron Poultry

(Case T-226/14)

2014/C 212/44

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Van der Hout, lawyer, and L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, agents)

Defendant: McCarron Poultry Ltd (Killacorn Emyvale, Ireland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendant to pay the European Commission the sum due of EUR 9 76 663,34, corresponding to the principal amount of EUR 9 00 662,25 plus the amount of EUR 76 001,09 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 2,50 % for the period between 01.12.2010 and 15.04.2014;

— Order the defendant to pay the European Commission the sum of EUR 61,690 per day by way of interest from 16.04.2014 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is presented under Article 272 TFEU seeking a decision of the General Court ordering the defendant to reimburse the European Commission the principal amount of EUR 9 00 662,25, plus interest, in relation to contract No NNE5/1999/20229 for ‘Community Activities in the Field of the specific programme for RTD and demonstration on “Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development — Part B: Energy program”’.

In support of its application, the European Commission raises a single plea in law: the Commission contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse to the Commission the difference between the Union's financial contribution due to defendant and the total amount of funding already received by it. The financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of advance and intermediate payments. The Commission contends therefore that, under the contract, the defendant is liable for the sum due.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/31

Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)

(Case T-254/14)

2014/C 194/40

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd. (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Hirschel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in case R 2035/2012-1 and allow the applicant’s trade mark applied for;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘NEW MAX’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06 474

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘MAX’, for services in Class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and complete rejection of the trade mark applied for

Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue
—

The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicants observe in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicants.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/39

Action brought on 12 May 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)

(Case T-321/14)

2014/C 212/51

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2014 in Case R 2025/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘STREET’ for goods in Classes 12, 28 and 35

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009