ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 21 January 2022 — AL v Council and Commission

(Case T-50/22)

(2022/C 128/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AL (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the contested decision of 22 October 2021 in respect of the parts which do not uphold the applicant’s previous complaints against the PMO decisions of 3 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 and, to the extent applicable, order that the follow-up decisions, establishing the exact amount to be recovered, be updated accordingly;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. (1)

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 violation of Articles 4, 5, 9 and 10 of the Council Decision of 29 April 2004 adopting the general implementing provisions concerning a person treated as a dependent child, in so far as the applicant’s net income was calculated with regard to other gifts/payments for his past military service and the contribution for maintenance of his mother by another person, giving rise to wrongful deductions under Article 5 of those general implementing provisions in the calculation of the maintenance cost for his mother.

2. Second plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the sums received for his past military service.

3. Third plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the principle of good administration in respect of the allowance for the applicant’s mother, treated as a dependent child, in so far as the administration was aware of the sums that the applicant received for his past military service.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for A and B for the period from 1 February 2013 to 30 June 2013, in the absence of any proof that the applicant was aware of the termination of the foster care period and therefore in the absence of the applicant’s intention to deliberately mislead the administration regarding the end of the foster care period.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and manifest error of appreciation in respect of the child allowance for C, (i) having regard to the fact that it is proven to the satisfaction of the administration that C is ‘actually being maintained’ by the applicant and (ii) in the absence of any proof of the applicant’s alleged intention to deliberately mislead the administration.

(1) The application refers, in the order sought, to ‘the defendant’ (singular).
Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Estonia v Commission

(Case T-62/22)

(2022/C 148/43)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicants: Republic of Estonia (represented by: M. Kriisa)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the European Commission’s Implementing Decision of 17 November 2021, in so far as it concerns the Republic of Estonia in the amount of EUR 634 057,30;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 21 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014, (1) read in conjunction with Article 30 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014, (2) and thus came to the incorrect conclusion that the system for the submission of aid applications in Estonia does not comply with those provisions.

2. Second plea in law — according to the applicant, the European Commission interpreted Article 30(2) of Regulation No 640/2014 in an arbitrary manner and, consequently, applied it incorrectly.

3. Third plea in law — the applicant submits that the European Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of good administration, since it was not able to provide sufficiently clear reasons why the animal replacement as authorised in Estonia does not comply with EU law.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).

(2) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 February 2022 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council

(Case T-97/22)

(2022/C 148/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, A. Guillerme and T. Payan, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should

— annul Council decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 (1) in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in the annex to that decision;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2177 of 9 December 2021 (2) in so far as the applicant remains at No 3 in Annex I to that regulation;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-90/22, Kande Mupompa v Council.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021, amending decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 75).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2181 of 9 December 2021 implementing Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of Congo (OJ 2021 L 443, p. 3).
—

in respect of the content, scope and implementation of the agreement which took effect on [confidential] in the [confidential] case: — annul the [confidential] mutual agreement for defective consent, but also failure to observe its terms; — annul, in so far as it constitutes the implementation of that agreement, the implied decision to promote the applicant retroactively to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018, as brought to his attention by providing his salary statement of May 2021, and as formally confirmed by decision of the Director-General of Resource Management (Appointing Authority) on [confidential]; — Annul the decision of the Director-General of Resource Managmeent of 30 November 2021 by which the EEAS rejected his [confidential] complaint against there being no express decision regarding his promotion to grade AD 14 on 1 January 2018 and against the EEAS producing a false statement aimed at, and which had the effect in of, altering the opinion of the General Court and the applicant’s right to rely on the principle of equal treatment in relation to this case.
—

declare the application admissible and consequently: — principally, — declare the action for annulment well founded and rule that the implied refusal of the appointing authority of 28 February 2022 and the European Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 (notice of determination) are null and void on the grounds that: — Article 77 of the Staff Regulations and Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations on which the notice of determination of 21 December 2016 is based are unlawful; — by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed in its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials; — by not proposing to the applicant, in his notice of determination of 21 December 2016, any repayment of the pension rights unaccounted for by the competent European authority, the European Commission failed to comply with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination; — and refer the file back to the appointing authority so that it may determine the amount to be repaid to the applicant; — in the alternative, — declare the action for compensation based on unjust enrichment well founded on the ground that the applicant has been impoverished by the amount of his pension rights contributed in his national pension scheme not taken into account by the competent European authority and which have, by the same token, enriched the pension fund of the European Union; — order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the financial loss suffered, assessed at the date of lodging this application at a principal amount of EUR 31 066,80 or, at least at 39,18 % of the periodic annuity payments received by the Commission since 1 February 2017, to be increased by the same percentage for future annuity payments;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 March 2022 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Impossible Foods (IMPOSSIBLE SAUSAGE)

(Case T-132/22)

(2022/C 191/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, M. Goldmann and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impossible Foods Inc. (Redwood City, California, United States)

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 IMPOSSIBLE SAUSAGE — European Union trade mark No 18 061 982

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 December 2021 in Case R 972/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and order the intervener to pay the costs before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 94(1), second sentence, read in conjunction with Article 70(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 95(1), first sentence, read in conjunction with third sentence 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;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 March 2022 — Biologische Heilmittel Heel v EUIPO — Esi (TRAUMGEL)

(Case T-130/22)

(2022/C 171/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Biologische Heilmittel Heel GmbH (Baden-Baden, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Esi Srl (Albisola Superiore, Italy)

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: Application for European Union figurative mark TRAUMGEL — Application for registration No 16 289 712

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 813/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the order No. 3 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal — R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021;

— alter the order No. 1 of the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal -R 813/2021-4 of 20 December 2021;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 6 April 2021 beyond the goods contained in the order No. 1 insofar as the opposition was rejected for goods in Class 3;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that Frontex committed an unlawful omission capable of giving rise to non-contractual liability, when failing to act in accordance with Art. 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896, in infringement of its positive obligations according to Art. 80 of that regulation and articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 18, 19(1), 19(2) and 21 of the CFR (2), the principle of sound administration, and in a misuse of power and manifest error of assessment. Frontex’s ED has unlawfully failed to exercise his discretionary powers in relation to Art. 46(4) of the Agency’s founding regulation before, during and also after the occurrence of the pushback operation of 28–29 April 2020. In the alternative, the ED committed a manifest error of assessment and misuse of power, and failed to fulfil his duty of diligence, in considering that Art. 46(4) does not apply to the situation to be regulated. Both aspects of the non-material damage would not have occurred without the contested unlawful failure to act of Frontex.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 March 2022 — Sanetview v EUIPO — 2boca2catering (Las Cebras)

(Case T-159/22)

(2022/C 198/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sanetview, SLU (Andorra la Vella, Andorra) (represented by: J. Gallego Jiménez, E. Sanz Valls, P. Bauzá Martínez, Y. Hernández Viñes and C. Marí Aguilar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 2boca2catering, SL (Seville, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Las Cebras — Application No 18 169 269

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 January 2022 in Case R 1070/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— reject the opposition filed against the contested mark, by finding that the trade marks at issue can co-exist peacefully;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation EU 2017/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Action brought on 6 April 2022 — Pharol v Commission

(Case T-181/22)

(2022/C 213/59)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Pharol, SGPS, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimosa Ruiz and L. Bettencourt Nunes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— recognise the applicant’s legitimate interest in bringing the present action for annulment;

— declare that the present action for annulment has been brought in due form and is admissible;

— annul Decision C(2022) 324 final of 25 January 2022, amending Decision C(2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (AT.39839 — Telefónica and Portugal Telecom) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

— in the alternative, and also pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, for the reasons given, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 1 of the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the expenses incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging a failure to have regard to the findings of the judgment of the General Court. The applicant submits that Decision C(2022) 324 final of 25 January 2022, amending Decision C(2013) 306 final of 23 January 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (AT.39839 — Telefónica and Portugal Telecom) represents a new interpretation of the non-competition clause, which disregards the findings and the force of res judicata of the judgment of the General Court, for which reason the contested decisions should be annulled.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of defence of Pharol due to a failure to adopt a statement of objections. The applicant submits that, since it has adopted a new interpretation of the non-competition clause, which affects the findings relating to the scale of the infringement, the Commission should have adopted a new statement of objections, and this amounts to an infringement of essential procedural requirements and of the rights of defence of the applicant, thereby justifying the annulment of the contested decision.

Third plea in law, alleging an error in determining the sales values connected with the infringement. The applicant submits, inter alia, that the essential element for analysing the existence of potential competition, for the purposes of identifying precisely the sales connected, directly or indirectly, with the infringement, must be the actual possibility of entering each market at issue, that is to say the absence of insurmountable barriers to entry and, where there are such barriers, the existence of real and concrete possibilities for the undertaking to enter each of the markets; it is not sufficient for the Commission to make a finding — which is moreover erroneous — in the contested decision that there are no insurmountable barriers.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 4 April 2022 — Novartis v EUIPO — AstraZeneca (BREZTRI)

(Case T-175/22)

(2022/C 207/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Nordemann-Schiffel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AstraZeneca AB (Södertälje, Sweden)

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 BREZTRI — European Union trade mark No 17 816 687

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2022 in Case R 737/2021-2

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 27(3)(b) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 21 April 2022 — Procter & Gamble v EUIPO (Safeguard)

(Case T-210/22)

(2022/C 222/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, United States) (represented by: M. Körner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Safeguard — Application for registration No 18 457 075

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 February 2022 in Case R 1753/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 April 2022 — Zelmotor v EUIPO — B&B Trends (zelmotor)

(Case T-194/22)

(2022/C 222/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Zelmotor sp. z o.o. (Rzeszów, Poland) (represented by: M. Rumak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B&B Trends, SL (Santa Perpetua de Mogoda, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘zelmotor’ — EU trade mark No 10 980 225

Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 927/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 927/2021-2 in part, in so far as it makes a declaration of invalidity in respect of the goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 35, with the exception of stators and rotors in Class 7;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the applicant.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 28 April 2022 — Growth Finance Plus v EUIPO (doglover)

(Case T-231/22)

(2022/C 237/89)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Growth Finance Plus AG (Gommiswald, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark doglover — Application No 18 107 487

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2022 in Case R 720/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’). According to the applicant, the principle of equality was breached, in so far as the applicant was not notified of the contested decision in his maternal language and because it did not mention the remedies available and the periods in which these remedies may be exercised. Furthermore, the prosecutor also acted as decision-maker, although the separation of those functions is a guarantee offered by Article 6 of the ECHR.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 May 2022 — Suicha v EUIPO — Michael Kors (Switzerland) International (MK MARKTOMI MARKTOMI)

(Case T-264/22)

(2022/C 244/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lin Suicha (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: J. Donoso Romero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Michael Kors (Switzerland) International GmbH (Manno, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark MK MARKTOMI MARKTOMI — European Union trade mark No 17 946 599

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 March 2022 in Case R 1899/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in all its pronouncements;

— reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law