ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 16 April 2021 — Polynt v ECHA

(Case T-207/21)

(2021/C 228/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar, and S. Abdel-Qader, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare this application admissible and well-founded;

— annul the contested decision;

— order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency of 9 February 2021 by which it upholds the ECHA decision requesting to carry out additional tests as part of the evaluation of the substance Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (case A-015-2019) pursuant to Article 40 of Regulation (CE) no 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council (1) (‘REACH Regulation’). In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it reviewed the lawfulness of ECHA’s decision TPE-D-2114483466-38-01/F of 4 September 2019 on a testing proposal for the substance Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride (EC number 243-072-0 and CAS number 19438-60-9) (‘4-MHHPA’);

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal erred in law when it concluded that the examination of testing proposals is the same as for the examination of a Compliance Check;

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to apply the correct legal test and to consider the Applicant’s arguments, reversed the burden of proof in relation to the requirements of Column 2 of the Section 8.7.3. of the Annex X to the REACH Regulation and failed to address the appellant’s arguments regarding the findings of the WHO Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 75;;

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal violated/misapplied Articles 91 to 93 of the REACH Regulation;

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to address the applicant’s pleas in relation to the violation of Article 13 of the TFEU, Article 25 of the REACH Regulation and the principles of protection of animal welfare, proportionality and sound administration.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006, L 396, p. 1)
—

The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not exercise due care and attention in the adoption of the contested decision, since before the adoption of the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence he had adduced, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigations in Ukraine.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement by the defendant of its duty to ensure that officials and those elected by them have complete freedom to choose their representatives in accordance with established rules. The applicant also alleges infringement of Article 4 of the Staff Committee’s Rules of Procedure and of the duty of due diligence.
Action brought on 13 May 2021 — Yanukovych v Council

(Case T-262/21)

(2021/C 278/74)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Rostov on Don, Russia) (represented by: B. Kennelly, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant seeks the annulment of 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 (1) 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 (2) (‘the Ninth Amending Instruments’ or ‘2021 Sanctions’), insofar as they concern the applicant.

The applicant also seeks his 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 Council did not and could not verify that the decision(s) of the Ukrainian authorities on which it relied when listing the applicant were adopted in accordance with his fundamental EU rights of defence and to effective judicial protection.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in determining that the designation criterion had been satisfied. In particular, the Council accepted the material supplied by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office without any proper examination and/or without taking account of the inaccuracies identified by the applicant. The Council should have undertaken additional checks and requested further evidence from the Ukrainian authorities in light of the observations the applicant submitted and the exculpatory evidence he produced, but the Council’s limited enquiries fell short of what was required. In consequence, there is no sufficiently solid factual basis for the 2021 Sanctions.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU have been breached, in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate restriction on those rights, because: (i) there is no suggestion that any funds allegedly misappropriated by the applicant are considered to have been transferred outside Ukraine; (ii) Ukrainian domestic measures would plainly be adequate and sufficient; and (iii) restrictive measures have now been in place for seven years and have been imposed on the basis of a pre-trial investigation which is in reality deceased or at the very least in total stagnation.

(1) OJ 2021, L 77, p. 29.

(2) OJ 2021, L 77, p. 2.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the failure of the Agency to act in the context of Art. 265 TFEU concerns the applicants directly and individually, as their situation has been prejudiced already multiple times by the new State and organizational policy of systematic and widespread practices of either abduction from EU soil and forcible transfer back to sea, or interception at sea; abandonment at sea on unworthy vessels causing serious risk to life; unlawful refoulement, collective expulsion, and prevention of access to asylum. The continued failure of Frontex to take appropriate measures in order to prevent these violations — including the suspension or termination of its activities as Article 46 Commands — significantly increases the risk of the Applicants to be subjected again, for the 6th time, to the very same infringements of the Treaties, as well as of international and European customary and treaty law.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 May 2021 — Zdút v EUIPO — Nehera and Others (nehera)

(Case T-250/21)

(2021/C 278/72)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ladislav Zdút (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: Y. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Nehera (Sutton, Ontario, Canada), Jean-Henri Nehera (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), Natasha Sehnal (Montferrier-sur-Lez, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word figurative nehera mark in black — European Union trade mark No 11 794 112

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2021 in Case R 1216/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 10 June 2021 — Harley-Davidson Europe and Neovia Logistics Services International v Commission

(Case T-324/21)

(2021/C 297/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Harley-Davidson Europe Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom), Neovia Logistics Services International (Vilvoorde, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Baelen and G. Lebrun, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Contested Decision (1) in its entirety;

— order that the Commission pay its own costs and the applicants’ costs in connection with these proceedings;

— draw all useful consequences from the judgment; and

— order measures of organisation or enquiry as deemed appropriate by the Court.

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 the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements. The Contested Decision is insufficiently reasoned and the Commission failed to follow properly the advisory committee procedure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment of the relevant facts.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its revocation power under Article 34(11) of Regulation (EU) No. 952/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, because it has based the contested decision on an incorrect interpretation of Article 33 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 (3) (‘UCCDA’).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that Article 33 UCCDA is invalid, because (i) if the Commission has correctly interpreted Article 33 UCCDA that provision is invalid for breach of the requirements of Article 290 TFEU and (ii) it is invalid for such breach in any event.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Contested Decision is in breach of general principles of EU law and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misused its powers in issuing the Contested Decision and has abused its power to revoke Binding Origin Information decisions, as an inevitable consequence of the pleas above and as a result of the Commission having abused its revocation power to political ends, undermining its proper purpose: to ensure correct and uniform application by Member States of origin rules.

(1) Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/563 of 31 March 2021 on the validity of certain decisions relating to binding origin information (OJ 2021, L 119, p. 117).

(2) OJ 2013, L 269, p. 1.

(3) OJ 2015, L 343, p. 1.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 June 2021 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)

(Case T-325/21)

(2021/C 297/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska and R. Skubisz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

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 Vitalsss plus — Application for registration No 17 969 083

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2021 in Cases R 503/2020-1 and R 647/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant, and in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, by the intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in connection with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;
—

request that the applicant’s competition tests and test results, and the results of the next stage, be produced in order to enable a substantive assessment of the results correlating to each irregularity and the significance of the consequences of the stress induced by the irregularities found, pursuant to Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 18 June 2021 — F I S I v EUIPO — Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (ECODOWN)

(Case T-338/21)

(2021/C 320/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: F I S I Fibre sintetiche SpA (Oggiono, Italy) (represented by: G. Cartella and B. Cartella, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Verband der Deutschen Daunen- und Federnindustrie (Magonza, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ECODOWN’ — European Union trade mark No 2 756 740

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2021 in Case R 216/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consequently, rule on the merits confirming the validity of EU trade mark No 2 756 740

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

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

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hecht Pharma v EUIPO — Gufic Biosciences (Gufic)

(Case T-346/21)

(2021/C 329/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Hecht Pharma GmbH (Bremervörde, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and J. Sachs, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gufic Biosciences Ltd. (Mumbai, India)

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 Gufic — EU trade mark No 8 613 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2738/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and also declare EU trade mark No 8 613 044 ‘Gufic’ revoked in respect of Class 5 ‘Medicines’;

— order Gufic Biosciences Ltd. to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the pre-litigation procedure.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 July 2021 — documentus Deutschland v EUIPO — Reisswolf (REISSWOLF)

(Case T-374/21)

(2021/C 329/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: documentus Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Weller, V. Wolf and A. Wulff)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reisswolf Akten- und Datenvernichtung GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg)

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 REISSWOLF — EU trade mark No 5 791 751

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 in Case R 2354/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 9 September 2019 in cancellation proceedings (invalidity) No 17 081 C concerning the EU trade mark REISSWOLF, No 5791751;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
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. In particular, it is alleged that the defendant failed to demonstrate that LOT is eligible to the recapitalisation aid under the Temporary Framework and it is also alleged that the defendant failed to assess whether there were any other more appropriate and less distortive measures available besides the recapitalisation. The applicant also argues that the defendant conducted a flawed review of the proportionality of the amount of recapitalisation, of the aid’s remuneration and the conditions for exit of the State as well as of the elements of the aid concerning governance and the prevention of undue distortions of competition.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 June 2021 — Coinbase v EUIPO — bitFlyer (coinbase)

(Case T-366/21)

(2021/C 338/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coinbase, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: bitFlyer Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark coinbase — International registration designating the European Union No 1 308 248

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2021 in Case R 1751/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-429/21)

(2021/C 357/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantina Sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy)

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 word mark ALDIANO — European Union trade mark No 10 942 274

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 1074/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 5 July 2021 — DZ Bank v SRB

(Case T-390/21)

(2021/C 349/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Bank AG Deutsche Zentral-Genossenschaftsbank, Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main, 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 9 July 2021 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-409/21)

(2021/C 368/44)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s decision of 3 June 2021 on State aid SA.56826 (2020/N) — Germany — 2020 reform of support for cogeneration and State aid SA.53308 (2019/N) — Germany — Change of support to existing CHP plants (§ 13 KWKG), to the extent that it finds that (a) the support to the production of CHP electricity in new, modernised and retrofitted highly efficient CHP installations, (b) the support to energy-efficient district heating/cooling networks, (c) the support to heat/cooling storage facilities, (d) the support to the production of CHP electricity in existing highly efficient gas-fired CHP installations in the district heating sector, and (e) the reduced CHP surcharge for hydrogen producers constitute State aid under the KWKG 2020; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law. According to the applicant, the European Commission erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 107(1) TFEU by determining that the undertakings concerned by the notified measures had received aid granted by the State or through State resources. The applicant submits that the European Commission, first, erred in assuming that the fiscal nature of a surcharge of itself implies that the funds raised have the characteristic of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The applicant submits that the European Commission, secondly, erred in assuming that the CHP-surcharge under the Gesetz für die Erhaltung, die Modernisierung und den Ausbau der Kraft-Wärme-Kopplung 2020 (‘the Law on Combined Heat and Power Generation; ‘the KWKG’) actually constitutes a tax within the meaning of the case-law of the European Court of Justice. The applicant submits that the European Commission, thirdly, erred in assuming that the resources received by the transmission system operators are under public control and are thus at the disposal of the State.