ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, which is divided into three parts, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU in that the Commission has failed to establish the existence of an advantage in favour of Amazon EU S.à r.l. (‘LuxOpCo’). — First part, alleging that the application of the tax ruling and its renewal in 2011 did not lead to any advantage being granted inasmuch as the royalty fee that a third party would have paid for a licence for intangible assets would have been greater than the fee paid by LuxOpCo to Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (‘LuxSCS’) under the licence agreement. The applicant maintains that the Commission Decision of 4 October 2017 relating to State aid SA.38944 allegedly granted by Luxembourg to Amazon (‘the contested decision’) erred in finding that the royalty fee actually paid by LuxOpCo differs from the arm’s-length price. — Second part, alleging manifest errors of fact and of law that vitiate the analysis carried out in the contested decision relating to an alleged misapplication of the transactional net margin method in the context of the tax ruling, both in the choice of the tested party and in the application of the parameters of that method. — Third part, alleging that, on the contrary, it is the Commission’s transfer pricing calculations in the contested decision that would lead to an outcome that deviates clearly from the arm’s-length principle.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the AECC made an unlawful offer of employment to the applicant which, due to that fact, he was unable to accept unconditionally.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 72/45

Action brought on 3 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg BEER COMPANY)

(Case T-5/18)

(2018/C 072/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Hamburg BEER COMPANY’ — Application for registration No 15 272 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2017 in Case R 436/2017-5

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 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

Grounds concerning amounts excluded from financing by the European Union on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Sufficient quality of on-the-spot checks’ and deficiency in key control ‘Adequate verification of payment claims’; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to direct purchases; on the basis of deficiency in key control ‘Appropriate evaluation of reasonableness of costs’ — expenditure related to evaluation committee’: — Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of Article 34 of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014 in connection with the addition by the Commission of new grounds in support of its findings on the quality of on-the-spot checks; — Infringement of the principle of legal certainty in connection with the lack of clear criteria and instructions concerning the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks; — Infringement of the principle of sound financial management and the clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 in connection with the application of unjustified financial corrections; — Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the financial correction applied under measure No 311 for the financial years 2013, 2014 and 2015; — Infringement of the of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections in connection with the application of the amount of the financial correction which is not proportionate to the actual risk of financial harm caused to the European Union; — Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52 of Regulation No 1306/2013 and of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections concerning the application of the financial corrections in connection with the sufficient quality of the on-the-spot checks; — Infringement of Article 34(6) of Implementing Regulation No 908/2014, Article 12(8) of Delegated Regulation No 907/2014, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the application of corrections in respect of all expenditure for which reimbursement has been requested; — Infringement of the conformity clearance procedure under Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013, of the guidelines for the calculation of financial corrections and of the principle of proportionality in connection with the definition of the ground for applying corrections in respect of projects in the period under review;
2.

Second plea in law: infringement of substantive-law rules of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — First, the contested decisions infringe the first and second sentence of Article 17(5) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. Contrary to those provisions, the defendant does not appear to have assessed the extent to which the harmonised standards at issue conform to the relevant mandates. Consequently, it failed to recognise that there is in fact no such conformity. — Second, the contested decisions infringe Article 18(2), in conjunction with Article 3(1) and (2) and the first sentence of Article 17(3), of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. The defendant disregarded the fact that the contested harmonised standards include no methods or criteria for assessing performance in relation to the essential characteristics for the mechanical resistance, stability, breaking resistance and load-bearing capacity of tanks for use coming within the scope of the standards in earthquake and flood areas, and that they are therefore insufficient in respect of three essential characteristics of construction products and consequently jeopardise compliance with the basic requirements for construction works. — Third, the defendant committed an error of assessment by rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request that it add, in each case, a restriction when publishing the references for the contested harmonised standards, thereby infringing Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011. — Lastly, the defendant committed a further error of assessment when adopting the contested acts by reason of the fact that it rejected the applicant’s alternative request that it withdraw the references for the contested standards from the Official Journal of the European Union on the basis of the possibility, which in the Commission’s view was extant, of a restriction or prohibition on the part of the Member States.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/30

Action brought on 19 February 2018 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO — Gastro & Soul (CAFE DEL SOL)

(Case T-90/18)

(2018/C 134/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain) (represented by: J. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gastro & Soul GmbH (Hildesheim, 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: European Union figurative mark ‘Café del Sol’ — European Union trade mark No 6 104 608

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2017 in Case R 1096/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision and declare the opposition based on the earlier trade mark belonging to the opponent, Mr Ramón Guiral Broto, Spanish trade mark No 2348110, in Class 42 of the International Classification, well founded.

— Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division refusing Community trade mark application No 6 104 608, filed by the German company gastro & soul GmbH, in respect of ‘services for the provision of food and drink, temporary accommodation, catering’ in Class 43 of the International Classification, on the ground that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as a result of the coexistence of the marks at issue given the strong verbal similarity and the identity in terms of their application. In the alternative, if the General Court lacks jurisdiction in that regard, it should refer the matter back to the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, provided that the opposition is deemed to be well founded.

— In the further alternative, (i) annul the contested decision because of inconsistency and infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and legal certainty by having expressly denied him the possibility of submitting a full translation of the opponent’s earlier trade mark in the context of Case R 1096/2017-4, thereby defeating one of the main purposes of the referral of the case back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal ordered by the General Court on 13 December 2016 in Case T-549/15, and (ii) order a further referral back to EUIPO’s Board of Appeal to remedy that situation and settle the dispute.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of Article 3 and 22 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), in that the applicant was not heard by the Appointing Authority for its decision under Article 3 of Annex IX or before rejecting the applicant’s application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/61

Action brought on 20 February 2018 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v EUIPO (500 PANORAMICZNYCH)

(Case T-120/18)

(2018/C 142/79)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: C. Rogula, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ — Application for registration No 15 299 712

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 in Case R 2201/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal by upholding the applicant’s appeal and registering the trade mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ on the basis of the finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

in the alternative

— annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal and order the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) to review the application for registration of the word mark ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ as an EU trade mark (application for registration No 15 299 712), in particular with a view to removing any current irregularities, finding that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ does not meet the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, in particular points (b) and (c) thereof, and there are therefore no absolute grounds for refusal;

and/or

— declare, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, that the word sign ‘500 PANORAMICZNYCH’ has acquired distinctive character through use (secondary distinctiveness), and there are therefore no grounds for refusing to register the trade mark, and in particular none of the conditions set out in Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of that regulation apply;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 134/27

Action brought on 9 February 2018 — Bekat v EUIPO — Borbet (ARBET)

(Case T-79/18)

(2018/C 134/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Arif Oliver Bekat (Esslingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Borbet GmbH (Hallenberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark ARBET — Application for registration No 14 320 915

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 December 2017 in Case R 1117/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and dismiss the intervener’s appeal of 26 May 2017 against the decision of the Opposition Division of 30 March 2017;

— order the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 152/54

Action brought on 5 March 2018 — Sona Nutrition v EUIPO — Solgar Holdings (SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA)

(Case T-154/18)

(2018/C 152/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sona Nutrition Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solgar Holdings, Inc. (Ronkonkoma, New York, United States)

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: EU figurative mark in colours green, light brown, beige, dark brown and golden brown, SOLGAR Since 1947 MultiPlus WHOLEFOOD CONCENTRATE MULTIVITAMIN FORMULA — Application for registration No 13 781 273

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2017 in Case R 1322/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Solgar Holdings, Inc., if it should intervene in these proceedings, to bear the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation No 2017/1001;
2.

With regard to the application for annulment, the applicant relies on: — a failure to provide adequate reasons, in that the Commission merely stated that certain systemic errors were found in the checks made in the financial audit carried out in the agreement which is the subject of the contested decision, without, however, explaining what those errors are; — misuse of powers, in that, by automatically extending the conclusions of a financial audit carried out in the context of one contractual relationship to other contractual relationships, the Commission infringed the second paragraph of Article 135(5) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) and a fundamental principle of administrative contracts in general, and public contracts in particular, that is to say, the inviolability of the remuneration clause.
—

annul Article 4 of ECB Decision No ECB/SSM/2017 — 9695005MSX1OYEMGDF46/338 (taken together with its annex) of 19 December 2017, in so far as it prescribes measures to be taken regarding irrevocable payment commitments in respect of the deposit guarantee schemes or the resolution funds;
—

Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/71

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (Motor vehicles)

(Case T-191/18)

(2018/C 161/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 762851-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2018 in Case R 1203/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal and declare EU design No 762851-0001 null and void;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b), of Regulation No 6/2002;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/42

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International v EUIPO — Wessanen Benelux (BonNatura)

(Case T-194/18)

(2018/C 166/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rewe-Beteiligungs-Holding International GmbH (Köln, Germany) (represented by: S. Brandstätter, M. Kinkeldey and J. Rosenhäger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wessanen Benelux BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands).

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BonNatura — Application for registration No 14 038 491

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 January 2018 in Case R 949/2017-5.

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 Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in so far as the applicant remains at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP and No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/34

Action brought on 16 March 2018 — JV Voscf and Others v Council and Others

(Case T-197/18)

(2018/C 190/57)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: JV Voscf LTD (Limassol, Cyprus) and 9 others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Kakoulli, P. Panayides and C. Pericleous, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup and European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the schedule annexed to this application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

— find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

— determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants consider that the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions. The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme is a serious violation and in support of their action, they rely on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging violation of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

2. Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

3. Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the appraisal procedure set out in the Annual Salary and Bonus Review guidelines (‘ASBR guidelines’), of the principle of legal certainty and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff, committed by the defendant in adopting the staff report for 2016 (‘the contested staff report’). The applicant raises the following complaints in particular: — the contested staff report was drafted by a member of staff of DG-H rather than by the assessors; — the contested staff report was adopted even though the applicant’s appraisal exercise had already been definitively closed; — the appraisal period relating to the contested staff report was too short to form the basis of an annual appraisal; — the contested staff report does not constitute a performance tool.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/35

Action brought on 26 March 2018 — Vanda Pharmaceuticals v Commission

(Case T-211/18)

(2018/C 190/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Vanda Pharmaceuticals Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, B. Natens, A.-S. Melin, and C. Muttin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 252 final of 15 January 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 for ‘Fanaptum — iloperidone’, a medicinal product for human use, together with the scientific conclusions and grounds for refusal of 9 November 2017 and the Assessment Report of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 9 November 2017;

— in the alternative, annul only the said Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 252 final;

— order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the risk assessment of the arrhythmogenic potential of iloperidone is based on a failure to state reasons (and, in any event, is manifestly erroneous), and violates the principle of equal treatment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the risk minimisation measures proposed for iloperidone is based on a failure to state reasons (and, in any event, is manifestly erroneous), and violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the principle of equal treatment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the consequences of the delayed onset of iloperidone is based on a failure to state reasons and violates Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the requirement to identify a population in which iloperidone would outperform other products violates Article 5(1), 5(2) and 5(3) TEU, Articles 12 and 81(2) of Regulation 726/2004, (1) and the principle of equal treatment.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the overall risk-benefit assessment of iloperidone is based on a failure to state reasons (and, in any event, is manifestly erroneous).

(1) 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).