ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/37

Action brought on 4 December 2013 — Serco Belgium and Others v Commission

(Case T-644/13)

2014/C 24/70

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Serco Belgium (Brussels, Belgium); SA Bull NV (Auderghem, Belgium); and Unisys Belgium (Brussels) (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission's decision of 30 October 2013, communicated to applicants by letter dated 31 October 2013, rejecting the OPTIMUS consortium's bid for tender DIGIT/R2/PO/2012/026 — ITIC-SM (IT service management for the integrated and consolidated IT desktop environment of the European Commission) (OJ 2012/S 69-112095) and awarding the contract to the GISIS consortium; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicants' offer was rejected because of the extremely low marks awarded by the Commission on the award sub-criteria relating to staffing. In short, the Commission considered that the number of staff proposed by applicants is too low and therefore inadequate to assure the requested quality of service.

The applicants' plea alleges that its bid was rejected on the basis of unlawful award criteria. The sub-criteria relating to staffing are not aimed at identifying the tender which is economically the most advantageous since:

— as the Commission expressly admits, the answers to these criteria provided by tenderers do not give rise to (contractual) requirements. The applicants contend that it is contrary to EU law to evaluate tenderers on the basis of statements which are not binding;

— these sub-criteria are not related to the quality of the tender (the level of service that will be provided) but rather to the tenderer's intrinsic ability to commit a sufficient number of staff in order to meet the performance requirements imposed by the service level agreement (SLA). These sub-criteria are therefore selection criteria;

— since no optimal number of staff was mentioned and no precise indication was given on how the Commission would value the indicated number of staff, and since the essence of the Commission's integration and consolidation project, as made clear by the tender specifications, is to achieve the high standard of quality contractually imposed in the most efficient manner, these sub-criteria led to an unpredictable result;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 24/25

Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Verus v OHIM — Joie International (MIRUS)

(Case T-576/13)

2014/C 24/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Verus Eood (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: C. Röhl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joie International Co. Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— vary the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 23 August 2013 in Case R 715/2012-5 so that the opposition is entirely upheld and the application for Community trade mark 9599416 is rejected;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Joie International Co. Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘MIRUS’ for goods in Class 12 — application for Community trade mark No 9 599 416

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘MIRUS’ for goods in Classes 12, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/24

Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

(Case T-640/13)

2014/C 39/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany) (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 in Case R 905/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld to the extent put forward in the appeal and Community trade mark application No 9207085 is rejected;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CRETEO’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 9207085

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word marks ‘StoCretec’ and ‘STOCRETE’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights The applicant submits in that regard that the rejection by the national competent authority of the requested allocations infringes the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the principle of proportionality. The expected under-supply of allowances to the applicant would cause it clear disproportionate hardship unforeseen by Directive 2003/87/EC. The creation of a situation likely to endanger the existence of undertakings, such as the applicant, is not appropriate, necessary or proportionate to meet the objectives set out in the directive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/43

Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA

(Case T-692/13)

2014/C 45/74

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, lawyers)

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

— in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;

— in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in Case T-270/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA (OJ C 207 of 20 July 2013, p. 46).

It should be noted in this regard that, in relation to the present proceedings, both defendants have claimed that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against a measure which, in their view, is not final.

According to the applicant, it has brought an action against the decision adopted by TEN-T EA on 23 October 2013 as a purely precautionary, defensive, measure in order to draw attention once more to the unlawfulness of the decision to reduce financing.

The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put forward in Case T-270/13.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/41

Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v European Commission

(Case T-660/13)

2014/C 45/71

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

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

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 886/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to data and procedures for the provision, where possible, of road safety-related minimum universal traffic information free of charge to users (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 6) and

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

In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 5(1), Article 9 and Article 10(1)(a) of the contested regulation, 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 3 pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40, in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 209 TFEU In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.

(1) Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 107(1) TFEU and 296 TFEU — The measure in question satisfies the condition of selectivity: the applicants claim, first, that the Decision is vitiated by an error in that it identifies sectorial selectivity since the measure that is the subject of the Decision was open to investors operating in all sectors of the economy and, secondly, that the Decision is vitiated by an error in that it concludes that a prior authorisation procedure can confer selectivity, without taking into consideration that the prior authorisation was justified by the complexity of the measure in question and, in any case, does not concern the qualities of the alleged beneficiaries. — The measure in question satisfies the conditions relating to distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States; the applicants claim, in particular, that the Decision does not explain how the alleged State aid would have an effect on the markets referred to and confines itself to asserting the fact without proving it. In addition, in the second part of this plea for annulment, the applicants submit that the Decision is vitiated by a defect in reasoning, in that it does not explain why the benefit retained by the alleged beneficiaries constitutes State aid when those beneficiaries merely shared the benefit obtained by the shipowners, which, as the Commission itself recognises, does not constitute State aid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/13

Action brought on 18 December 2013 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)

(Case T-674/13)

2014/C 61/23

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gugler France SA (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2013 given in Case R 356/2012-4;

— Cancel the contested trade mark;

— Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘GUGLER’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 17, 19, 22, 37, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 3 324 902

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds were those laid down in Article 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and 53(1)(c) CTMR
—

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of law and infringed Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU in categorising the application of the Spanish tonnage tax regime in certain cases as new aid rather than as existing aid. Given that, in 2002, the Commission approved the tonnage tax regime notified by Spain, if the Commission had wished to call in question the application of that regime, it ought, in any event, to have done so in accordance with the procedure applicable to existing aid. The applicant maintains that the arguments set out in the decision to make the case for the existence of new aid are manifestly unfounded.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/37

Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)

(Case T-637/13)

2014/C 52/72

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 1434/2012-4;

— Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO’ in black, red, gold, white, light sky blue, dark sky blue, yellow and light green for goods in Classes 30, 32, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 273 884

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal was wrong to say that the cumulative principle in the REACH testing annexes meant that a second species was the default requirement at Annex X to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 tonnage. In support of this plea the applicant claims that: — The Board of Appeal’s reasoning represents a non sequitur. Testing requirements do not necessarily increase as one moves to a higher tonnage annex: the cumulative principle is often not relevant for particular endpoints, and is not for developmental toxicity; — Column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex X, by its explicit terms, requires a study in ‘one species’, not two — the same as column 1 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX; — The Board of Appeal’s reasoning ignores the clear words of column 2 of section 8.7.2 of Annex IX, which provides that whether a second species study is required at Annex IX or Annex X tonnage depends on the outcome of the first species study and all other relevant available data: it is not automatic; — The Board of Appeal’s conclusion makes no sense in policy terms: it ascribes to the REACH legislators an intention that, at a lower Annex level (Annex IX), the need for a second species study is dependent on scientific evaluation, whereas at a higher Annex level (Annex X), science is irrelevant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 85/20

Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Wolverine International v OHIM — BH Stores (cushe)

(Case T-642/13)

2014/C 85/34

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wolverine International, LP (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Plesser and R. Heine, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BH Stores BV (Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 September 2013 given in Case R 1269/2012-4;

— Reject the request for a declaration of invalidity;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘cushe’ for goods in Class 25 — International Registration No 859 087 designating the European Union

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Likelihood of confusion pursuant to Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the contested IR designating the European Union invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 57(2) and (3) CTMR
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Mogyi Kft. v OHIM

(Case T-8/14)

(2014/C 71/46)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Mogyi Kft. (Csávoly, Hungary) (represented by Zs. Klauber, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Order the publication of the trade mark application except as regards ‘bread, pastries, sugar’ (Class 30), and ‘agricultural products, seeds’ (Class 31).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:‘Just crunch it …’ word mark for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 35 — Community trade mark application 10 713 485.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision by decision in Case R 1921/2012-1

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 61/21

Action brought on 7 January 2014 — Banco Popular Español v Commission

(Case T-31/14)

2014/C 61/38

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Banco Popular Español, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, P. Vidal Martínez, J. López-Quiroga Teijero and G. Canalejo Lasarte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision under Article 263 TFEU in so far as the decision establishes the existence of State aid and orders its recovery from the investors;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 4(1) of the decision, inasmuch as they identify the investors as beneficiaries who have to repay the alleged aid;

— in the alternative, declare inapplicable the order, in Article 4(1), for recovery of the aid from the investors, inasmuch as it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations since recovery may not be ordered from a date earlier than the publication of the decision to initiate [the formal investigation procedure];

— in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision and declare invalid the methodology for determining the alleged advantage [conferred] to be repaid by the investors;

— declare non-existent or, in the alternative, annul in part Article 4(1) of the decision relating to the prohibition on ‘transfer[ring] the burden of recovery on other subjects’, inasmuch as this amounts to a decision on the prohibition or presumed invalidity of the contractual clauses on recovery from third parties of the amounts the investors have to repay to the Spanish State; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-29/14 Taetel v Commission.

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in that case.
—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;