ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, Articles 12 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the Charter’) and Article 51 of the conditions of employment of ECB staff (‘the conditions of employment’), of the right to career and promotion prospects as well as of the principle of legal certainty. — The applicant submits that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (‘CST’) of 15 December 2015 in Case F-94/14, Bowles v ECB, has not yet been implemented by the ECB. In particular, Circular No 1/2011 on additional salary increases (‘ASI’), declared illegal by the CST, has been neither withdrawn or amended. — He also submits that, in the absence of legislative change, staff representatives enjoying a full or substantial work dispensation are once more in a position where they are deprived of the possibility of wage growth or career progression, unlike the rest of the ECB staff. — Next, the applicant submits that his exclusion from the comparative exercise following which the decision to grant the ASI is taken by the ECB affects the legality of that exercise and that the exclusion, which in practice is final, clearly places him at a disadvantage and discriminates against him because of his role as a full-time staff representative.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 410/23

Action brought on 15 September 2016 — Camerin v Parliament

(Case T-647/16)

(2016/C 410/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Laure Camerin (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Declare the application admissible;

— Annul the contested decision;

— Annul, if necessary, the rejection decision;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against the decision taken on 1 December 2015 by the Secretary General of the S&D Group in the European Parliament, refusing to extend the applicant’s service beyond the age of 65 years until 31 December 2016 (the contested decision), the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into two parts.

— First part, alleging infringement of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations of Officials, a manifest error of assessment and infringement of the principle of sound administration.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB

(Case T-698/16)

(2016/C 441/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the ECB’s decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

— order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB's earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63)
1.

First ground of appeal, divided into two limbs, alleging infringement of Article 11(4), (5) and (6) of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) of 27 August 2009 establishing the staff appraisal procedure (‘decision of 27 August 2009’), interpreted in the light of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. — First limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in failing to examine the plea, relied on at first instance by the appellant, relating to the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator. — Second limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the order under appeal by failing to examine, of its own motion, the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/32

Action brought on 13 October 2016 — Palos Caravina v CdT

(Case T-725/16)

(2016/C 462/42)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision refusing to grant her application to have communicated to her the decision to appoint Ms [X] to the Spanish translation team announced in October 2015 and, in so far as is necessary, the CdT Appointing Authority’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint against that refusal;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.

She considers that the announcement of a person’s ‘arrival’ in a service in no way fulfils the obligation to publish appointment decisions laid down in Article 25 and, in the absence of proper publication, each member of staff has the right to require that the appointment decision at issue be communicated. That right was, therefore, infringed in the present case by the Appointing Authority of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) in adopting the contested decision, namely, the decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to communicate to the applicant the decision in question.

The applicant also submits that the act of relying on Regulation No 45/2001, relating to the protection of personal data, against that right, stemming from Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, is ineffective, because even if an appointment decision fell within the scope of the data protected by that regulation, Article 25 would have to be considered a lex specialis, conferring a right of access on third parties.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringements of law by the ECB in adopting the contested decision, relating in particular to: — the lack of a leverage effect in regard to La Banque Postale’s centralised savings; — the alleged risks of non-payment by the Caisse des dépôts et consignations and by the French State; — the alleged operational risks linked to the gathering of La Banque Postale’s centralised savings.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of the General Implementing Provisions (GIP) of Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations concerning the transfer of pension rights of 3 March 2011. That infringement was committed by the Appointing Authority when calculating the deduction of the amount representing the capital appreciation between the date of the application for a transfer and the actual date of the transfer.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 462/31

Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (zerø)

(Case T-722/16)

(2016/C 462/40)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘zerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 612

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2371/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 612 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;

— order the other party to pay the costs.

Plea in law
3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the interpretation relied upon in the Contested Regulation about the ‘seriously undermining of the remedial effect’ condition laid down in Article 10(4)(d) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 is wrong and unlawful. — First limb: the Commission wrongfully carried out a global assessment of the ‘seriously undermining of the remedial effect’ condition laid down in Article 10(4)b of the Basic regulation, while it should have carried out an individual analysis of the conduct of each importer to determine whether its imports did contribute to the alleged serious undermining of the remedial effects of the duties. — Second limb: the Contested Regulation is flawed insofar as it concludes that the retrospective application of duties on imports occurred during the registration period would avoid the remedial effect of the duties from being seriously undermined.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging several errors of law on the part of the ECB. The applicant claims that, even if the ECB had been competent to adopt the contested decision, that decision would not be valid since it is vitiated by several errors of law in relation to Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2013’) and the intentions of the EU legislature by reason of the fact that the ECB misinterpreted the legislation in question and thus adopted a decision which: — is contrary to the objectives and purpose of the rules on leverage ratio since it disregards not only the objective of leverage ratio legislation itself but also the legislature’s intention as expressed in Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013; — alters the basic provision by taking into consideration two additional conditions that are not included in the provision at issue; — renders Article 429(14) of Regulation No 575/2013 ineffective.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/50

Action brought on 8 November 2016 — InvoiceAuction B2B v EUIPO (INVOICE AUCTION)

(Case T-789/16)

(2017/C 014/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: InvoiceAuction B2B GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Jonas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘INVOICE AUCTION’ — Application for registration No 13 821 095

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 August 2016 in Case R 2201/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/46

Action brought on 4 November 2016 — Isocell v EUIPO — iCell (iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden)

(Case T-777/16)

(2017/C 014/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Isocell GmbH (Neumarkt am Wallersee, Germany) (represented by: C. Thiele, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: iCell AB (Älvdalen, Sweden)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘iCell. Insulation Technology Made in Sweden’ — Application No 12 882 023

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2016 in Case R 181/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— amend the contested decision by upholding the opposition in its entirety and refusing EU trade mark application No 12882023;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/44

Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Mayekawa Europe v Commission

(Case T-800/16)

(2017/C 022/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mayekawa Europe NV/SA (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium (1);

— in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

— in any event, annul Articles 2-4 of that Decision in so far as these Articles (a) require recovery from entities other than the entities that have been issued an ‘excess profit ruling’ as defined in the Decision and (b) require the recovery of an amount equal to the beneficiary’s tax savings, without allowing Belgium to take into account an actual upwards adjustment by another tax administration; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision alleges the existence of an aid scheme.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and of the duty to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme as granting a selective advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE and manifest error of assessment in so far as the contested decision asserts that the purported scheme gives rise to an advantage.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107 TFUE, infringement of legitimate expectations and of the proportionality principle, manifest error of assessment, excess of power and failure to provide adequate reasons in so far as the contested decision orders Belgium to recover aid.

(1) Commission Decision (EU) 2016/1699 of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium (notified under document C(2015) 9837) (OJ L 260, 2016, p. 61)
3.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of care in that, firstly, the AECC terminated the applicant’s contract before taking a decision on the renewal of his leave on personal grounds, secondly, it acted thus without even making an initial offer of reinstatement to him and, thirdly, nor did it inform him whether it was possible under the budget to pay him at the end of his leave.
—

order the French State, the Aquitaine Regional Council, the Pyrénées Atlantiques Departmental Council, as decentralised state bodies, and the ERDF to recover the aid unlawfully paid, together with interest at the statutory rate as from the date on which that aid was made available;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/43

Action brought on 16 November 2016 — Xiaomi v EUIPO — Dudingen Develops (MI)

(Case T-799/16)

(2017/C 022/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Xiaomi, Inc. (Beijing, China) (represented by: T. Raab and C. Tenkhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dudingen Develops, SL (Numancia de la Sagra, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark ‘MI’ — EU trade mark application No 13 498 423

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 337/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in part, namely in so far as it held that there was no likelihood of confusion as regards: — ‘Electrical cables; Sheaths for electric cables; Cable covers [conduits]; Electrical power extension cords; Enamelled electric wires; Cable locators; Adapter cables (Electric -); Insulated electrical cables; Resistance wires; Thermocouple wires; Metallic cables [electric]; Cable connectors; Measuring cables; Connection cables; Ducting for electric cables; Cable splices for electric cables; Mounting cords [electrical]; Conduit for electric cables; Cable channels (Electric -); Cable boxes (ElectriC -); Cable junctions for electric cables; Wire connectors [electricity}; Heat resistant electric wires; Connection blocks [electric cable]; Helmets for use in spotts; Tags for identifying electric cables; Connections for electric cables; Markers for electric wire; Mineral insulated electric cables; Male connectors for electrical cables; Flexible sheaths for electric cables; Electricity mains (Materials for -) [wires, cables]; Junction sleeves for electric cables; Junction boxes for electric wires; Joint boxes for housing cable joints; Apparatus, instruments and cables for electricity; Electrical power adaptors; Plug adaptors; Adapter connectors (Electric -); Adapters for connecting telephones to hearing aids; Travel adaptors for electric plugs’ in Class 9 and — ‘Rucksacks; small rucksacks; bags for climbers’ in Class 18;

— order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Plea(s) in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/41

Action brought on 29 November 2016 — Alpirsbacher Klosterbräu Glauner v EUIPO (Klosterstoff)

(Case T-844/16)

(2017/C 038/54)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Alpirsbacher Klosterbräu Glauner GmbH & Co. KG (Alpirsbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer and S. Hofmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Klosterstoff’– Application for registration No 13 945 944

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2016 in Case R 2064/2015-5

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 7(1)(b),(c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009;
—

The decision wrongly asserts that two Opinions given in 1991 and 2007 by the Irish Revenue Commissioners ‘renounced’ tax revenue that Ireland would have otherwise been entitled to collect from the Irish branches of Apple Sales International (ASI) and Apple Operations Europe (AOE). The Opinions involved no departure from Irish law. The ordinary tax rules applicable to branches in Ireland of non-resident companies are in Section 25 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The Opinions simply applied Section 25, which in accordance with the territoriality principle, taxes only the profits attributable to the branch, not the non-Irish profits of the company. The decision also mischaracterizes the activities and responsibilities of the Irish branches of ASI and AOE. These branches carried out routine functions, but all important decisions within ASI and AOE were made in the USA, and the profits deriving from these decisions were not properly attributable to the Irish branches of ASI and AOE. The Commission’s attribution of Apple’s intellectual property licences to the Irish branches of AOE and ASI is not consistent with Irish law and, moreover, is inconsistent with the principles it claims to apply, as is its stated refusal to take into account the activities of Apple Inc.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 46/24

Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA

(Case T-881/16)

(2017/C 046/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: HJ (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

— order the defendant to withdraw the memorandum of 22 July 2015 and, consequently, the applicant’s response of 23 July 2015, from the applicant’s personal file;

— so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECE) of 21 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages submitted on 26 November 2015 and annul the decision of the AECE dated 19 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 20 June 2016 against the abovementioned decision;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the conditions required for the European Union to be held non-contractually liable, namely that of the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct, actual harm and the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been suffered, are satisfied in the present case. According to the applicant, the documents in his personal file, which were made public and accessible to any member of staff of the European Medicines Agency for a period of time, were not processed fairly and lawfully but were processed for purposes other than those for which they were collected without that change in purpose having been expressly authorised by the applicant. The dissemination of that sensitive data consequently called into question the applicant’s integrity, causing him real and certain non-material harm. In the applicant’s opinion, that harm must be attributed in its entirety to the Agency’s wrongful conduct.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the condition of eligibility for exemption of the gas infrastructure in Article 36(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 2(33) of Directive 2009/73/EC. — The condition for the grant of a regulatory exemption for major new gas infrastructure is that the level of risk attached to the investment in that infrastructure is such that the investment would not take place unless the regulatory exemption is granted. — The investment in the construction of the OPAL gas pipeline was finally realised and completed on 13 July 2011, therefore, it cannot be said that any further such risk exists.