ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging the illegality of the 2015 ASBR guidelines insofar as they infringe the principle of non-discrimination, Article 51 of the Conditions of Employment and Articles 12 and 21 of the EU Charter. On a subsidiary basis, illegality of the contested decision insofar as it violates the 2015 ASBR guidelines and is tainted by a manifest error of assessment. The applicant considers that the 2015 ASBR guidelines are illegal insofar as they put at a disadvantage staff members with limited availability for their business area for reasons that are objectively out of their control, such as sick leave, part time work due to disability or time dispensation for activities in the Staff Committee (or a combination thereof), in comparison to their colleagues available full time for their business area. The contested decision, which was adopted on the basis of illegal ASBR guidelines, is, as a consequence, also illegal. On a subsidiary basis, should the 2015 ASBR guidelines be legal, the applicant nevertheless considers that the contested decision violates these guidelines insofar as his periods of absence were used as a discriminating element in his case and, moreover, should have been used as a positive behavioral attitude to influence the ASBR reward positively. All the factors to be assessed in accordance with the 2015 ASBR guidelines should manifestly have led to a higher ASBR reward.
3.

Third plea, alleging that the logo featuring on the posters for MENL’s ‘Schengen’ campaign (‘the logo at issue’) conveys on national territories an exclusively European campaign, contrary to the view taken by the defendant in adopting the decision which the present action seeks to have annulled. In support of this plea, the applicant primarily puts forward three arguments, namely: — the campaign was orchestrated by MENL alone, without agreement or involvement of the national parties; — the campaign and the poster concern a problem of European scope which is that of the Schengen agreements; — the logo at issue is therefore not the logo of the national parties but the logo of the delegations of those parties within the European Parliament.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/46

Action brought on 15 November 2016 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Celon Pharma (SALMEX)

(Case T-803/16)

(2017/C 022/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, S. Wickenden, Barristers, R. Jacob, E. Morris, Solicitors,)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Celon Pharma S.A. (Łomianki, Poland)

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 figurative mark in colours light brown/coffee and white containing the word element ‘SALMEX’ — EU trade mark No 9 849 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2016 in Case R 2108/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and Other Party to bear their own costs and pay those costs of the Applicant for Annulment at every stage of the opposition and appeal process, including the costs of these proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/47

Action brought on 7 December 2016 — C & J Clark International v Commission

(Case T-861/16)

(2017/C 038/62)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: C & J Clark International Ltd (Somerset, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the application admissible;

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 of 13 September 2016 Re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Ltd, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, and implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 (OJ L 245, p. 16);

— order the European Commission to pay the 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 by proceeding without a valid legal basis, the Commission violated the principle of conferral under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU;

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 February 2016, C & J Clark International, C-659/13 and C-34/14, EU:C:2016:74, the Commission violated Article 266 TFEU;

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty on imports of Footwear ‘which took place during the period of application of the [Invalidated Regulations]’, the Commission violated Article 1(1) and 10(1) of the Basic Regulation (1) and the principle of legal certainty (non-retroactivity);

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by imposing an anti-dumping duty without conducting a fresh Union interest assessment, the Commission violated Article 21 of the Basic Regulation, and that, in any event, it would have been manifestly erroneous to conclude that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty was in the Union interest;

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that by adopting an act that exceeds what is necessary to achieve its objective, the Commission violated Articles 5(1) and 5(4) TEU.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 176, p. 21.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/58

Action brought on 9 December 2016 — repowermap v EUIPO — Repower (REPOWER)

(Case T-872/16)

(2017/C 030/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: repowermap.org (Bern, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repower AG (Brusio, Switzerland)

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 word mark ‘REPOWER’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 020 351

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Second decision (after revocation) of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2311/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— alter the contested decision by declaring the mark at issue invalid in respect of all the goods and services not cancelled by the contested decision, with the exception of packaging and storage of goods (Class 39), arrangement of travel (Class 39) and fire extinguishers (Class 9);

— order EUIPO and Repower AG to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, by which the applicant raises a plea of illegality in respect of the promotion system in force at the Court of Auditors of the European Union, implemented by decision 53-2014 on promotions, in that it affects the appointing authority’s ability to identify in a methodical way the disparities in the method of appraising officials as applied by the various reporting officers of the institution according to their own subjective viewpoint.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/50

Action brought on 7 December 2016 — Wenger v. EUIPO — Swissgear (SWISSGEAR)

(Case T-869/16)

(2017/C 038/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wenger SA (Delémont, Switzerland) (represented by: K. Ikas and A. Sulovsky, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swissgear Sàrl (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SWISSGEAR’– EU trade mark No 7 197 783

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2016 in Case R 2098/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/30

Action brought on 30 November 2016 — QG v Commission

(Case T-845/16)

(2017/C 053/37)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: QG (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruiz Ezquerra, R. Oncina Borrego, I. Sobrepera Millet y A. Hernández Pardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the Commission Decision of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA. 29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), granted by Spain to certain football clubs, infringes Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU, since the possibility of consolidating accounts brought about by the authorisation of four clubs to participate in different sports under Law 10/1990, as well as the application of the reduced tax rate under the same corporate tax, also constitute State aid incompatible with the internal market and, therefore, should be declared to be such by the European Commission.

— consequently, provide for the withdrawal/annulment of the measure and require the Kingdom of Spain to recover from the beneficiaries the aid that is incompatible with the internal market, and order it to pay costs in that regard.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 107(1) and 108(3) of the TFEU.

The applicant, a basketball club, expresses its agreement with the contested measure, inasmuch as it considers the measure introduced by Law 10/1990, consisting in more favourable treatment in terms of corporation tax by applying a reduced rate of taxation to certain football clubs, to be State aid incompatible with the internal market.

Nonetheless the applicant considers that the Commission should have reached the same conclusion in respect of the tax privilege provided for in Law 10/1990 and which consists in permitting those same clubs to participate in different sports.

Only the clubs that were able to participate in professional competitions in different sports were permitted to consolidate the accounts in respect of football and basketball, the main sports in Europe, with direct effects on the calculation of the corporate tax base. By consolidating the accounts, the significant receipts from football are reduced by the losses from basketball and, thus, the corporate tax base is significantly reduced, together with the tax to be paid.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/43

Action brought on 29 December 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Sharma (NRIM Life Sciences)

(Case T-909/16)

(2017/C 053/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa Rodríguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Anil K. Sharma (Hillingdon, United Kingdom)

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 ‘NRIM life Sciences’ — Application for registration No 13 031 455

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 September 2016 in Case R 2376/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— revoke the contested decision and reject the EUTM No. 013031455 NRIM LIFE SCIENCES for all goods in class 5;

— impose the costs to EUIPO and, in case ANIL K SHARMA decides to intervene in the present proceedings, to ANIL K. Sharma.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a framework contract ‘Maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 1 and EIGE/2016/OPER/01-Lot 2, notified to the applicant by letter of 14 October 2016, to reject the applicant’s tender and to award the framework contract to a third company;
—

annul the European Commission’s decision dated 30 September 2016 (the Contested Decision), concerning certain aid measures granted to certain third parties regarding the financing of the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link Project;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/43

Action brought on 6 January 2017 — Mitrakos v EUIPO — Belasco Baquedano (YAMAS)

(Case T-15/17)

(2017/C 063/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Dimitrios Mitrakos (Palaio Faliro, Greece) (represented by: D. Bakopanou, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Juan Ignacio Belasco Baquedano (Viana, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘YAMAS’ — Application for registration No 13 645 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 532/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, as well as the decision given by the Opposition Division which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

— reject the opposition and allow that the registration of the trade mark applied for be registered;

— order the EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 402/57

Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-501/17

( Official Journal of the European Union C 338 of 9 October 2017 )

(2017/C 402/75)

The Notice in Case T-501/17 Mutualidad Complementaria de Previsión Social Renault España v Commission and SRB should read as follows:
—

annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality adopted in the procurement procedure for the award of a ‘Framework contract for online services’ EIGE/2016/OPER/03-Lot 1, notified to the applicant by letter of 28 October 2016, to rank the applicant’s tender in second place and to award the framework contract for lot 1 to a third company;
9.

Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity. There is, he submits, no basis for the initial complaint and the charges pursued by the French prosecuting authorities against him. In that regard, he argues, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious. The act of bringing judicial proceedings against the applicant, even though he has himself brought an end to the alleged offence, which he did not commit, and the decision to waive his parliamentary immunity have manifestly nothing to do with justice but are designed to denigrate, harm and persecute him and his movement.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state the grounds. That plea is divided into three arguments. — In the first argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not provide evidence of serious and reasonable doubt; — In the second argument, the applicant submits that the guidelines set out in the document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997 are not applicable to the present case; — In the third argument, the applicant submits that the Commission did not align the imputed facts with the requirements for the 5 % financial correction provided for in Document VI/5330/97-PT of 23 December 1997.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/18

Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)

(Case T-47/17)

(2017/C 095/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Yotrio Group Co. Ltd (Linhai City, China) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Other EU trade mark (Affixing a green ring on a leg) — Application for registration No 14 396 568

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 285/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/39

Action brought on 30 January 2017 — Healy v Commission

(Case T-55/17)

(2017/C 112/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Morrison Healy (Celbridge, Ireland) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of 11 April 2016 by which the selection board excluded the applicant from participating in Competition COM/02/AST/16 (AST 2);

— order the Commission 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 breach of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations.

The applicant is of the view that the admission condition at issue, namely that of demonstrating 42 months of service within the Commission, is not justified in view of the requirements of the positions to be filled.

In addition, the applicant claims that Article 82(7) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS) is incompatible with Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in so far as it excludes, in all cases, contract staff who have completed less than 36 months of service from participating in internal competitions. In the present case, the applicant maintains, the Commission took the view that 36 months was a minimum threshold which vitiated the Appointing Authority’s assessment of the admission condition at issue.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/57

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)

(Case T-67/17)

(2017/C 104/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tèespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 517

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 959/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;

— order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;

— alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/36

Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO — Formosan (Shaken, not stirred)

(Case T-74/17)

(2017/C 121/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Danjaq, LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: S. Baran and G. Messenger, barristers, D. Stone and A. Dykes, solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formosan IP (Oxford, United Kingdom)

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 ‘Shaken, not stirred’ — Application for registration No 13 406 343

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of in Case R 255/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, inasmuch as that condition for admission is not, in any event, justified by the interest of the service or the type of posts to be filled.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/25

Action brought on 17 February 2017 — Pelikan v EUIPO — NBA Properties (NEW ORLEANS PELICANS)

(Case T-112/17)

(2017/C 129/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NBA Properties, Inc. (New York, 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 black and white containing the word elements ‘NEW ORLEANS PELICANS’ — Application for registration No 11 518 487

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 December 2016 in Case R 408/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
—

annul (i) the decision for the rejection of the applicant’s ‘Best and Final Offer’ (‘BAFO’) taken by the GSA in relation to the contract notice No GSA/CD/14/14 — ‘Galileo service operator’, and notified on 29 November 2016, and (ii) the decision to award the contract to another tenderer to operate and maintain the Galileo system;
—

annul Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 implementing Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/2231 of 12 December 2016 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP, in so far as it concerns Mr Delphin Kaimbi;