ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/53

Action brought on 5 September 2016 — Dehtochema Bitumat v European Chemicals Agency

(Case T-630/16)

(2016/C 402/63)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Dehtochema Bitumat, s.r.o. (Bělá pod Bezdězem, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Holý, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and declare to be invalid the decision of the European Chemicals Agency of 7 July 2016, according to which the applicant is to continue to be considered a large enterprise and as a result of which the applicant is not entitled to the fee reduction for a medium-sized enterprise, and allow the implementation of that decision to be deferred.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicant, the defendant by the abovementioned decision and its actions misused its power and infringed the principles of legality and legal certainty.

The applicant claims that in verifying the status of a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME), the defendant incorrectly assessed the independence of the applicant’s enterprise and incorrectly included in the calculation a number of employees and an amount of the applicant’s enterprise’s annual turnover plus allegedly linked or partner enterprises, which are not linked with the applicant’s enterprise or its partner enterprises under Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 or Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC.

The applicant submits that its declaration as to the incorrect size of the enterprise, which it made at the defendant’s request dated 2 June 2016, was essentially made with confidence in the defendant’s assessment and with the promise of a lower fee.

The applicant points out that its registration had been suspended and it had expressly informed the defendant that it has not produced the relevant products (substances subject to registration) since 2011.

The applicant claims that it follows from Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 that the right to a fee reduction on registration arises where it is possible to demonstrate such an entitlement and that it is thus appropriate, contrary to what is contended by the defendant, to allow the applicant to establish that entitlement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/25

Appeal brought on 21 September 2016 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-82/15, De Nicola v EIB

(Case T-669/16 P)

(2016/C 410/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 12, 13, 24, 55 to 57, 123 to 135 and 157 to 165 of the judgment itself;

— consequently, order the respondent to compensate Mr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, which dismissed the proceedings brought by the appellant, concerning, in essence, on the one hand, the annulment of the decision of 4 December 2014, by which the respondent denied the appellant the reimbursement of certain medical expenses, and, on the other hand, the award by the respondent and the European Union of compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

In support of his appeal, the appellant disputes the findings on the scientific benefits of laser therapy in the judgment under appeal.

The appellant claims furthermore that the conditions relating to compensation for damage, whether material or non-material, are met in the present case.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/23

Action brought on 14 September 2016 — Crocs v EUIPO — Gifi Diffusion (Footwear)

(Case T-651/16)

(2016/C 410/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Crocs, Inc. (Niwot, Colorado, United States) (represented by: J. Guise, D. Knight, L. Cassidy, H. Seymour, Solicitors, M. Berger, N. Hadjadj Cazier, H. Haouideg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 257 001-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 06/06/2016 in Case R 853/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and find that the website disclosures did not constitute a prior disclosure within the meaning of Article 7; upheld the contested registered Community design and dismiss the application for a declaration of invalidity;

— make an award of costs in its favour.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;
Appeal brought on 30 September 2016 José Barroso Truta, Marc Forli, Calogero Galante, Bernard Gradel against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 July 2016 in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v Court of Justice

(Case T-702/16 P)

(2016/C 441/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellants: José Barroso Truta (Bofferdange, Luxembourg), Marc Forli (Lexy, France), Calogero Galante (Aix-Sur-Cloie, Belgium), Bernard Gradel (Konacker, France) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellants

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-126/15, Barroso Truta and Others v CJEU;

and, giving judgment itself,

— Order the Court of Justice to pay EUR 61 121,08 on behalf of Mr Barroso Truta, EUR 129 440,98 on behalf of Mr Forli, EUR 76 324,29 on behalf of Mr Galante and EUR 99 565,13 on behalf of Mr Gradel, to any fund or insurance policy in the appellants’ names;

— In the alternative, order the Court of Justice to pay the abovementioned amounts to the appellants, those sums to be paid together with interest calculated at a rate of 3,1 % per annum from the date of the transfer of the appellants’ pension rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions;

— Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law by holding that the action for damages was inadmissible on the ground that the appellants did not observe the pre-litigation procedure, which allegedly should have commenced with the submission of a complaint, followed by a possible action for annulment of the decisions recognising the crediting of pensionable years in the pension scheme of the EU institutions.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the CST erred in law by holding that the AECC had committed no administrative error when communicating proposals concerning additional pensionable years, which nevertheless proved to be incomplete or incorrect with regard to contract agents in function group I.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 419/48

Action brought on 6 September 2016 — Wabco Europe v Commission

(Case T-637/16)

(2016/C 419/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wabco Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Righini and S. Völcker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application for annulment admissible;

— annul, in whole or in part, the decision (1); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because it is vitiated by errors in law and in fact in identifying the alleged State aid measure and categorising it as an aid scheme;

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering the measure selective under Article 107 TFEU;

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has erred in law and in fact in considering that the measure grants the applicant an advantage under Article 107 TFEU;

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission’s inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons infringes Article 296 TFEU;

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has breached the principle of good administration in failing to assess carefully and impartially all the elements of the case;

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the decision must be annulled because the Commission has misused of its power in establishing its own arm’s length principle through a State aid decision.

(1) Commission’s Decision C(2015) 9837 final of 11 January 2016 in State aid case SA.37667 — Excess Profit exemption in Belgium (the ‘decision’)
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 October 2016 — Luxottica Group v EUIPO — Chen (BeyBeni)

(Case T-721/16)

(2016/C 454/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Luxottica Group S.p.A. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: E.M. Ochoa Santamaría and I. Aparicio Martínez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xian Chen (Wenzhou, China)

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 containing the word element ‘BeyBeni’ — Application for registration No 12 511 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 675/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the application by annulling the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2016 in Case R 675/2015-5 and by refusing registration of the EU trade mark No 12 511 317 ‘BeyBeni’ pursuant to the provisions of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of the analysis of the conditions for its application.
3.

The first plea in law is based on an infringement of the principle of equal treatment due to the fact that, while, where there were technical problems, an extension of time was given to any applicants who had not submitted a proposal, on the other hand no corresponding right was given to applicants who had submitted their proposals to provide corrections or supplementary information or clarification.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/37

Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym v EUIPO — Hunter Douglas Holding (COSIMO)

(Case T-739/16)

(2016/C 462/48)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Akant Monika i Zbigniew Harasym sp. j. (Koszalin, Poland) (represented by: M. Krekora, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Douglas Holding GmbH & Co.KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘COSIMO’ — Application for registration No 12 130 324

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2016 in Case R 2364/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the appeal brought by the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs of the present proceedings and order the other party to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, infringement of the freedom of speech and of expression of EU citizens, with the particular circumstance that the comments referred to in the decision were made by an MEP in the exercise of his duties and inside the EU institutions, and infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 475/21

Action brought on 25 October 2016 — Stips v Commission

(Case T-740/16)

(2016/C 475/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that

— the European Commission is ordered to make good in full the harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the delay encountered in the organisation of the 2013 re-grading exercise;

— in any event, the European Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the loss which he suffered which is attributable exclusively to the disregard by the Commission of its duty of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The applicant argues, firstly, that the list of re-graded staff was not adopted by the Commission within a reasonable period, that is to say before 31 December 2013. He adds, secondly, that the material harm which is allegedly suffered is real and quantifiable and, thirdly, that there is a causal link between the Commission’s administrative error and the loss which he suffered.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/37

Action brought on 25/10/2016 — Vincenti v EUIPO

(Case T-747/16)

(2017/C 014/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the EUIPO’s decision not to recognize the applicant’s total permanent incapacity to perform duties and its refusal to declare that he shall be retired

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 defendant infringed the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, namely Articles 7-9, 13, 33, and 78 thereof, and Articles 13-16 of Annex VIII to those Regulations and in particular Article 53 of the Staff Regulations.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty and the principle of sound administration (Articles 41(1), 41 (2)(a), (b) and (c), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU) as well as the applicant’s procedural rights, also by basing the Contested Decision on distorted facts:

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

In support of the above pleas, the applicant argues in particular that the Appointing Authority does not have any discretion within the procedure for invalidity according to the relevant stipulations of the Staff Regulations to recognise or not recognise the permanent incapacity of an official to perform his duties, since the decision of the Invalidity Committee is binding and, even on the assumption that the Appointing Authority has a discretion within this procedure, there was no justified reason in the case of the applicant not to recognize his permanent incapacity.
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the European Central Bank (ECB) in interpreting the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 575/2013’). The applicant thus criticises, inter alia, the decision of the ECB of 24 August 2016 dismissing the application which it had submitted for authorisation to exclude public-sector exposures from the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’): — for being at variance with the intention of the European legislature and the objectives pursued by Regulation No 575/2013; — for rendering Article 429(14) of that regulation entirely ineffective; — for constituting an encroachment by the ECB on the powers of the European legislature.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/41

Action brought on 14 November 2016 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (ojo sunglasses)

(Case T-792/16)

(2017/C 022/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ojo sunglasses’ – EU trade mark No 13 224 761

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 in Case R 32/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs and legal fees of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/46

Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Rühland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)

(Case T-779/16)

(2017/C 014/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ No 1 402 341-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 in Case R 878/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the action for annulment of Community design No 0010402341-0006;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging conflict of interests, breach of the rights of defence, breach of the adversarial principle, breach of the principle of equality of arms and infringement of Article 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/57

Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom v EUIPO — Leedsworld (ZOOM)

(Case T-831/16)

(2017/C 022/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Zoom (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. de Arpe Tejero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Leedsworld, Inc. (New Kensington, Pennsylvania, 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 word mark ‘ZOOM’ — Application for registration No 11 766 111

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2016 in Case R 1235/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject entirely the EU trade mark No 11 766 111 ‘ZOOM’ for class 9;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment when it treated the contract concluded between GROUPE CANAL + and Pictures International Limited (‘Paramount’) as being incompatible, by object, with Article 101(1) TFEU and when it found that the undertakings offered by Paramount did not affect cultural diversity and more generally the financing and operation of films in the EEA. That plea in law is divided into two parts. — First part, alleging the compatibility of the prohibited clauses with antitrust law. First, the contested decision was adopted only on the basis of a broad and legally erroneous interpretation of the concept of an anti-competitive object, which resulted in the European Commission failing to examine, or at least to show, the effects of the territoriality clauses. Secondly, the assessment of the allegedly anti-competitive nature of the territoriality clauses results solely from an incorrect interpretation of the functioning of the pay-TV market. Third, the clauses of territorial exclusivity which the Commission considers to be anti-competitive are on the contrary necessary for effective competition on the merits on the pay-TV market. — Second part, alleging prejudice to cultural diversity, to the financing and operation of films following the contested decision. First, the contested decision has the effect of limiting the financing of the audiovisual offer originally produced in French, distorting competition on the pay-TV market. Secondly, by restricting the financing of the audiovisual offer, the contested decision has the effect of restricting the quality and diversity of the offer made to consumers.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as the Commission (i) failed to examine with the necessary care and objectivity whether the aid in question was liable to affect trade between Member States; (ii) did not take account of the fact that there is no threshold or percentage below which it can be considered a priori that trade between Member States is not affected; (iii) did not take account of the fact that the effect on trade between Member States does not depend on the local or regional nature of the services provided or the importance of the area of activity concerned; (iv) did not sufficiently emphasise that where State aid strengthens an undertaking’s position vis-à-vis other competing undertakings, it should be considered that the undertakings competing with the recipient undertaking will enjoy less favourable conditions for financing new investments in the State concerned.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/25

Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Sipral World v EUIPO — La Dolfina (DOLFINA)

(Case T-882/16)

(2017/C 046/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Sipral World, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Dolfina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DOLFINA’ — EU trade mark application No 3 701 828

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2016 in Case R 1897/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervening party, LA DOLFINA S.A., to pay all the costs of the dispute before the General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Second Board of Appeal.

Plea in law