ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 8 August 2022 — Cathay Pacific Airways/Commission

(Case T-489/22)

(2022/C 359/118)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd (Hong-Kong, China) (represented by: M. Rees and E. Estellon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— pursuant to Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, order the European Union (represented by the European Commission) to pay: — financial compensation corresponding to the default interest on the sum of EUR 10 080 000 at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations on 1 March 2017 (i.e. 0,0 percentage point), increased by a rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum, for the period between 21 June 2017 and 14 July 2022 which results in an amount of EUR 1 758 488,24 or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount that the Court considers appropriate; and — compound interest on the amount of default interest under the preceding subparagraph for the period between 15 July 2022 (or, failing that, from the date the Court will consider appropriate) and the date of actual payment by the European Commission of the amount claimed in that preceding subparagraph at the ECB interest rate for its refinancing operations, increased by an interest rate at 3,5 percentage points per annum or, failing that, at the interest rate or the amount the Court considers appropriate;

— further or alternatively, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Commission’s decision Ares(2022)5454770 of 29 July 2022 and order it do so in the same amounts as sought in paragraph above;

— order the European Commission to pay the entirety of the applicant’s costs of the present proceedings.

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 contested decision infringes Article 266 TFEU.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Commission Delegated Regulation No 1268/2012 (1) interpreted in accordance with Article 266 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because it is insufficiently motivated.

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error of assessment regarding fulfilment of the requirements for the compatibility of the aid scheme Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III (‘ZFM’), in particular as regards the origin of the profits and the creation and maintenance of jobs in the region.
Action brought on 22 July 2022 — EIB v Syria

(Case T-456/22)

(2022/C 359/105)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: D. Arts and E. Paredis, lawyers, T. Gilliams, R. Stuart and F. de Borja Oxangoiti Briones, agents)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should impose on the Syrian Arab Republic the order:

— for payment of all sums due to the EU under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the the Port of Tartous Loan Agreement with nr. 22057 (hereafter ‘the Loan Agreement’) since 9 August 2017 further to its right of subrogation comprising: — EUR 18 440 034,97, the amount due to the EU as at 30 June 2022, which is principal of EUR 13 942 526,00, interest of EUR 2 589 128,20 and contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 30 June 2022) of EUR 1 908 380,77. — further contractual default interest, accruing at an annual rate equal to the higher (for any successive period of one month) of (i) a rate equal to the EURIBOR rate plus 2 % (200 basis points) or (ii) the fixed rate payable under Article 3.01 plus 0,25 % (25 basis points), until payment is made.

— for payment of all sums due to the Bank under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement since 9 August 2017 comprising EUR 5 405,54, the amount due to the Bank as at 30 June 2022, which is contractual default interest (accrued from the due date to 14 June 2022 (which is the date that EU paid the related instalment of principal and interest under the 2000 Guarantee)).

— for payment of all costs related to the present proceedings pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.

First and only plea in law, alleging that the Syrian Arab Republic has breached its contractual obligations under Articles 3.01 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of the further instalments under the Loan Agreement as they have fallen due, since 9 August 2017 and under Article 3.02 of the Loan Agreement to make payment of default interest on each of the instalments due and not paid, accruing at the annual rate therein. Consequently, the Syrian Arab Republic is contractually obligated to pay all amounts due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the EU (subrogated to the Bank’s claims) and the amount due under Articles 3.01, 3.02 and 4.01 of the Loan Agreement to the Bank as contractual default interest.
Action brought on 29 June 2022 — Dz Hyp v SRB

(Case T-402/22)

(2022/C 380/16)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DZ Hyp AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and W. Weber, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 11 April 2022 on the calculation of the 2022 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2022/18), including the annexes thereto, in so far as the contested decision, including Annex I, Annex II and Annex III thereto, concerns the applicant’s contribution;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, in the event that the Court takes the view that the contested decision is legally non-existent as a result of the use of the incorrect official language by the defendant and the action for annulment is therefore inadmissible on the ground that it is devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on nine pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-396/22 Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 August 2022 — Aldi v EUIPO — Heredero de Navarra (LYTTOS)

(Case T-517/22)

(2022/C 389/20)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heredero de Navarra, SL (Mendavia, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark LYTTOS — Application No 18 126 191

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2022 in Case R 1462/2021-2

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 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 6 September 2022 — Prolactal v EUIPO — Prolàctea (PROLACTAL)

(Case T-549/22)

(2022/C 408/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Prolactal GmbH (Hartberg, Austria) (represented by: H. Roerdink and S. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prolàctea, SAU (Castrogonzalo, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark PROLACTAL — International registration designating the European Union No 1 475 897

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2022 in Case R 752/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it relates to Prolactal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;

— Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, on the ground that the EUIPO’s decision that the requests for proof of use filed by Prolactal do not comply with the requirements of Article 10(1) EUTMDR, and are thus inadmissible, is not proportional to the consequences thereof;

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

— Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

— Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty as the burden of proof imposed by EUIPO went beyond the scope of what could be expected from the applicant to provide as evidence for coexistence;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 August 2022 — Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale v EUIPO — O2 Worldwide (brightblue)

(Case T-516/22)

(2022/C 398/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Glasfaser Wholesale GmbH (Borken, Germany) (represented by: A. Doepner-Thiele and U. Kelp, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Worldwide Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark brightblue — Application for registration No 17 913 265

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2022 in Case R 0024/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 September 2022 — CFA Institute v EUIPO — Global Chartered Controller Institute (CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE)

(Case T-561/22)

(2022/C 418/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CFA Institute (Charlottesville, Virginia, United States) (represented by: W. May and G. Engels, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Global Chartered Controller Institute SL (Alicante, Spain)

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 CCA Chartered Controller Analyst CERTIFICATE — Application for registration No 15 508 161

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2022 in Case R 1660/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the appeal action against the contested decision in its entirety, annul the contested decision and reject the application for registration entirely;

— order the intervener to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

declare that, after Frontex was called upon to act in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 265 TFEU, Frontex unlawfully failed to act, by refraining from taking the decision to withdraw the financing of all or part of its activities in the Aegean Sea region, to suspend those activities or to terminate them in whole or in part, in accordance with Article 46(4) of Regulation 2019/1896 (1), or by not providing duly justified grounds for failing to implement the relevant measure within the meaning of Article 46(6) of that regulation, and, further, that it did not define its position in response to the applicant’s preliminary request.
Action brought on 16 September 2022 — EDPS v Parliament and Council

(Case T-578/22)

(2022/C 424/58)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Data Protection Supervisor (represented by: D. Nardi, T. Zerdick, A. Buchta and F. Coudert, acting as Agents)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 74a and Article 74b of Regulation 2016/794 (1) as amended by Regulation 2022/991 (2);

— condemn the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging violation of the independence and powers of the applicant as a supervisory authority because of the infringement of the principle of legal certainty and of the principle of non-retroactivity of legal acts. The applicant alleges infringement of Article 8(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 55 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (3) read in conjunction with Article 43(1) and (3)(e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/794 as amended by Regulation (EU) 2022/991.

The applicant claims that his standing to bring an action for annulment under Article 263 TFEU is justified by the need to be able to dispose of a judicial remedy to defend his institutional prerogatives, in particular his independence as a supervisory authority under Article 8(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the institutional balance between the role of supervisory authorities and the role of the legislator.

Alternatively, he claims being directly and individually concerned by the contested provisions, which he has a clear and actual interest to have annulled.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/794 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol) and replacing and repealing Council Decisions 2009/371/JHA, 2009/934/JHA, 2009/935/JHA, 2009/936/JHA and 2009/968 (OJ 2016 L 135, p. 53).

(2) Regulation (EU) 2022/991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2022 amending Regulation (EU) 2016/794, as regards Europol’s cooperation with private parties, the processing of personal data by Europol in support of criminal investigations, and Europol’s role in research and innovation (OJ 2022 L 169, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 September 2022 — Nienaber v EUIPO (BoneKare)

(Case T-610/22)

(2022/C 441/36)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Jannah Nienaber (Cloppenburg, Germany), Andreas Nienaber (Cloppenburg) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark BoneKare — Application No 18 411 756

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2022 in Case R 348/2022-1

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging non-compliance with the obligation to state reasons for the measures adopted by the European institutions. — It is submitted in that regard that by examining the reasons for the measures, all the interested parties can be placed in a position to know and understand the methods by which the institutions implement the Treaty, since the obligation to state reasons has both a review function and a participatory function, in so far as in making the assessments made prior to the adoption of the institutions’ measures clearly understandable, it contributes to alleviating the democratic deficit often levelled against the European Union. — The principles regarding the statement of reasons have not been complied with, since the Commission submitted only wholly generic and formulaic claims for the reasons for which the disclosure of the supplementary letter of formal notice of 15 July 2022 would undermine the aforementioned ‘climate of trust’; it replied with a form in which few and scarce claims were inserted which would allow the applicant and the Court a genuine review of the legality of reasons for the refusal, that refusal being insufficiently justified; that is particularly true as regards the reasons that would have prevented at least a partial disclosure of the document, already to some extent disseminated with the infringement package of 15 July 2022, albeit not in such a way as to enable understanding of the content and the reasons for the additional objections made in relation to Italy. — The contested refusal of access does not clearly indicate the grounds on which it is founded, their legal basis, the factual basis and the way in which the different relevant interests have been taken into consideration, because the refusal affects the exercise of rights pursuant to Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, with the consequence that since the measure adopted imposes the limitation of a right recognised to the applicant by the Treaty, consisting in a restriction of such rights, the reasons must be somewhat stricter, more precise and accurate in order that the choices made are clearly understandable.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 October 2022 — Topper Argentina v EUIPO — Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology (wetoper)

(Case T-630/22)

(2022/C 463/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Topper Argentina, SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. M. Mora Cortés, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ningbo Xiangxinli Network Technology Co. Ltd (Qingdao, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark wetoper — EU trade mark No 18 249 968

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2022 in Case R 2126/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener (if it enters an appearance and intervenes in these proceedings) to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Operations Department and before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging lack of any legal basis and infringement of Articles 4, 5, 25 and 40 TEU and Articles 3, 4, 82, 83 and 215 TFEU. The applicants claim, in that connection, that, by requiring Member States to treat any deviation from the Council’s requirement to declare assets as a circumvention of sanctions, the Council, which is aware that the circumvention of sanctions is a criminal offence in 25 of the 27 Member States, has acted as a legislative authority in criminal matters.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 3 November 2022 — IP v Commission

(Case T-669/22)

(2022/C 482/39)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: IP (represented by: J. Martins, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action admissible and well founded;

— annul the contested decisions;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety;

— order the defendant to pay fair and adequate compensation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the European Commission’s decision of 18 January 2022 to impose against IP the disciplinary sanction of termination without notice of his employment contract, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and of the obligation to state reasons.

Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 October 2022 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — MHCS (Shade of the colour orange)

(Case T-652/22)

(2022/C 472/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Kefferpütz and K. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MHCS (Épernay, France)

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 trade mark No 747 949

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2022 in Case R 118/2022-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

— in the alternative, if the trade mark at issue is not declared invalid, refer the case back to the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Inadmissible interpretation of the trade mark at issue by reference to external circumstances;

— Unlawful disregard of the description provided in defining the subject-matter of the trade mark at issue;

— Erroneous assumption that the graphic representation as such meets the requirement of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

— Erroneous assumption that EUIPO had set legitimate expectations;

— Erroneous determination of the relevant public and its degree of attention;

— Incorrect restriction of the relevant market to champagne wines;

— Erroneous interpretation of the concept of acquisition of distinctiveness through use and disregard of the relevance of market surveys;

— Disregard of relevant observations submitted by the applicant;