ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging flaws in the contested decision as regards the aid from the département of Bouches-du-Rhône to the ‘Marseille-Provence 2’ (MP 2) terminal. In particular, — the measure does not meet clearly defined objectives of general interest. The Commission’s assessment in the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, an error of law and an error of assessment, as regards: — the objective of tackling an expected increase in air traffic; — the objective of boosting the region’s economic development; — the aid is unnecessary.
1.

First plea in law, alleging breaches of rules intended to confer rights on individuals, including, amongst others, a breach of data protection rules envisaged in article 4(1) (b) of the Regulation no 1049/2001 read in conjunction with article 4(4) of the same regulation and with implementing rules of Regulation 1049/2001, a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a breach of data protection rules envisaged in various articles of the Regulation no 45/2001 and in implementing rules of Regulation 45/2001, and a breach of the duty of care.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/34

Action brought on 9 December 2016 — Verschuur v Commission

(Case T-877/16)

(2017/C 053/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Steven Verschuur (Baarn, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 3 October 2016, C(2016) 6455 final, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application (1) for access to documents under Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 (2) (GESTDEM 2015/3732); and

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant.

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 Commission violated Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the purpose of investigations, thereby also committing a manifest error of fact.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 related to the protection of the Commission’s decision making process, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the protection of the commercial interests of a legal person, and Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, related to the institution’s obligation to grant partial access when only parts of a document are covered by one or more exceptions, thereby also giving an inadequate statement of reasons.

(1) Application for access to some documents related to the Commission’s decision of 21 October 2015 in case SA.38374, State aid implemented by the Netherlands to Starbucks.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 2001, p. 43).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 53/40

Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

(Case T-902/16)

(2017/C 053/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Commission No (2016)6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate proceedings pursuant to article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergerCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia concerning the envisaged acquisition by Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. of 100 % of the shares in Cemex Hratska dd. and Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft.; and

— in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

According to the applicant, the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG — rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., a full-function joint venture in which the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG each hold respectively a controlling interest of 50 %, as ‘undertakings concerned’ and thus concluded that the transaction has a ‘Union dimension’ within the meaning of article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. According to the applicant, in reality, the European Commission lacks the competence for adopting the contested decision and reviewing the transaction on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the contested decision therefore violates article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the underlying principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.

First, the applicant puts forward that the European Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in relying on paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (2) in order to qualify the applicant and SchwenkZement KG, rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., as the ‘undertakings concerned’;

Second, the applicant puts forward that paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice would be unlawful if it could indeed be applied to the case at hand due to a violation of article 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the underlying primary law principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ, L 24, p. 1.

(2) Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2008, C 95, p. 1.
1.

The first plea in law alleges that the assessor of the probationary period misused his discretion by drawing up a negative assessment report for the probationary period and groundlessly making public criticisms against the applicant. The applicant submits that EASO found without any reference to the case-law or other source of law that (each) ‘assessor enjoys an especially broad discretion in assessing the work of persons on whom he is to report, since the assessment report conveys the assessor’s freely expressed opinion’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/33

Action brought on 22 December 2016 — Schwenk Zement v Commission

(Case T-907/16)

(2017/C 063/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 (Case M.7878 — HeidelbergCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia (OJ 2016 C 374, p. 1)).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, (1) read, as appropriate, in conjunction with Paragraph 147 of the Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (‘the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice’) In the context of the first plea in law, the applicant submits that the examination of the contested concentration does not come within the Commission’s competence. Had the applicant, correctly, not been regarded as a participating undertaking, the turnover thresholds indicated in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 would not have been met.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons The applicant claims, in this regard, that, although the Commission did refer to the existence of the exceptional case in Paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice, it failed to prove that the conditions actually existed for such an exceptional case.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
2.

Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and shortcomings in the Commission’s investigation in so far as the Commission considered that the entry of a new MNO was in itself sufficient to resolve the horizontal effects of the merger, without considering the factors that had determined the success of the entry of H3G, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hutchinson through which the latter operates. — The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission, in particular, did not concern itself with verifying whether the new MNO had (whether on the retail market or on the wholesale market) operating capacity, economic conditions and incentives at its disposal that were at least equivalent, as a whole, to those of H3G, which in its early years was operating within a rapidly-expanding market. In addition, the Commission should have taken into consideration the effect produced on competitive dynamics by the one-sidedness of the termination rate available to H3G, which gave it a significant advantage with respect to other MNOs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/38

Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA)

(Case T-6/17)

(2017/C 063/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ITM Entreprises SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA’ — Application for registration No 13 576 616

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 October 2016 in Case R 690/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the present action and accordingly annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO, as defendant, and, as appropriate, the other party to the proceedings, ITM Entreprises, to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/32

Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Westbrae Natural v EUIPO — Kaufland Warenhandel (COCONUT DREAM)

(Case T-65/17)

(2017/C 086/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Westbrae Natural, Inc. (Delaware, United States) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kaufland Warenhandel GmbH & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘COCONUT DREAM’ — Application for registration No 13 599 501

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2016 in Case R 182/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— make an order concerning the costs in favour of the applicant.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and the decision of the Single Resolution Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016, supplementing the decision of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund for 2016 (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as the contested decisions affect the applicant’s contribution;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 104/55

Action brought on 31 January 2017 — Safe Skies v EUIPO — Travel Sentry (TSA LOCK)

(Case T-60/17)

(2017/C 104/77)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Safe Skies LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Schwepler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Travel Sentry, Inc. (Windermere, Florida, 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: EU word mark ‘TSA LOCK’ — EU trade mark No 4 530 168

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 November 2016 in Case R 233/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Defendant to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the court and to order the (potential) Intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

— set a date for an Oral Hearing for the case that findings of the General Court are not possible without an Oral Hearing.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

annul the decision adopted on 11 May 2016 by the Registrar of the Court of Justice, the contents of which were communicated to the applicant by letter of 20 May 2016, not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 10 as of 1 July 2015 and, so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 6 October 2016 by the Complaints Committee rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant dated 22 July 2016;
2.

Second plea in law, alleging the primacy of the European Treaties and the Charter over Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant considers that that regulation, which introduces lawful restrictions on the principles of transparency, participation and openness, must be interpreted and applied very restrictively taking account of the chronology of the adoption of the legal texts and of the Charter. Therefore, it considers that the defendant, first, should not have applied the general presumption that there is an undermining of the protection of the objectives of the investigation activities in so far as, in the present case, at issue is a cross-sectional enquiry and, secondly, it should have stated that the Member States had not requested that protection.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/46

Action brought on 20 February 2017 — M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v. EUIPO (fluo.)

(Case T-120/17)

(2017/C 121/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘fluo’ — Application for registration No 14 664 486

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 863/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in the part that it has rejected the trade mark in question and allow the trade mark to be registered for all the goods of class 9 of the Nice classification applied for;

— order EUIPO to pay the overall costs of the proceedings of all instances.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/38

Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)

(Case T-90/17)

(2017/C 121/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Gelinova Group Srl (Tezze di Vazzola, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘galatea…è naturale’ — Application for registration No 13 187 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2016 in Case R 207/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 80 of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘the Financial Regulation’). The applicant submits that, since the proceedings before the Belgian court are still pending, the Commission’s accounting officer could not lawfully treat the debt at issue as certain, of a fixed amount and due. The Commission therefore did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 80 of the Financial Regulation and thus could not be compensated.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/26

Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS

(Case T-119/17)

(2017/C 129/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera and 28 other applicants (Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that:

— The contested decision is annulled, insofar as it reduces, with effect from 1 January 2016, the amount of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 % to 25 %;

— The EEAS is ordered to make a lump-sum payment to the applicants, the amount of which shall be determined ex aequo et bono by the General Court, in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

— The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the lawfulness of the EEAS’s decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to members of the temporary staff of the EU in the Ethiopia delegation from 30 % to 25 %.

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

1. The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to adopt the GIP of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

2. The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, insofar as the method used by the EEAS to set the amount of the ALC in a particular place of employment takes account of the principle of ‘regional coherence’.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/59

Action brought on 17 March 2017 — Laboratoire Nuxe v EUIPO — Camille and Tariot (NYOUX)

(Case T-179/17)

(2017/C 144/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Nuxe (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Wilhelm and J. Roux, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elisabeth Camille (Alicante, Spain), Jean Yves Tariot (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: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘NYOUX’ — Application for registration No 12 931 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 January 2017 in Case R 718/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, based on the contention that the contested decision rests on an incorrect legal basis for the purpose of assessing the compatibility of the guarantee granted to the Caisse Centrale de Réassurance.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/32

Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)

(Case T-182/17)

(2017/C 161/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AKANTO’ — Application for registration No 13 289 781

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 531/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (European trade mark No 13 289 781) in respect of the goods in class 5 described in the application for registration;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/44

Action brought on 27 March 2017 — CeramTec v EUIPO — C5 Medical Werks (Shade of pink)

(Case T-195/17)

(2017/C 151/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: CeramTec (Plochingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Renck and E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C5 Medical Werks (Grand Junction, Colorado, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Figurative colour mark in pink — EU trade mark No 10 214 195

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 February 2017 in Case R 930/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, in that the applicant was not heard before a decision was made by joint agreement by the EESC and the CoR to transfer an official, and/or the applicant was not notified immediately, in writing, of the decision taken by the CoR in implementation of that agreement, while the reasons for that decision were not comprehensively and clearly explained to him.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/36

Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)

(Case T-188/17)

(2017/C 161/51)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Coil Liner’ — Application for registration No 14 473 193

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 443/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

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

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