ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 14 June 2021 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-333/21)

(2021/C 310/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: F.-C. Laprévote, E. Vahida, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 29 December 2020 on State Aid SA.59188 (2020/NN) — Italy — Alitalia COVID-19 Damage Compensation II (1); and

— order the defendant 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 the defendant misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU by prioritizing the review of the aid and freezing its investigation of unlawful rescue aid granted to Alitalia in 2017 and 2019.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violates its duty to state reasons.

(1) OJ 2021 C 134, p. 2.

(2) Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).
—

annul the implicit decision taken by the ENISA Executive Director not to identify the post of Head of Unit of Policy Office and the post of Head of Unit of Finance and Procurement for internal mobility (the ‘implicit decision’); — The implicit decision has been revealed by: — the Administrative Notice 2020-11 presenting the conclusions of the dialogues for internal mobility of 1 September 2020, published on 3 September 2020 (the ‘Conclusions’) according to which three posts of Head of Units, corresponding namely to the Secured Infrastructure and Service Unit (COD1), the Data Security and Standardisation Unit (COD2) and the Operational Security Unit (COD3) have been identified for internal mobility; — the decisions of 5 August 2020 published on the ENISA website concerning two vacancies for open competition for the posts of Head of Unit for Executive Director Office and for Corporate Support Services.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 23 June 2021 — Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development v EUIPO — Aruba (ARUBA NETWORKS)

(Case T-345/21)

(2021/C 329/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP (Houston, Texas, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aruba SpA (Bibbiena, Italy)

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 word mark ARUBA NETWORKS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 198 196

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 in Case R 1473/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings;

— order Aruba S.p.A. to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, due diligence, and the principle of impartiality enshrined by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The applicant claims that, in order to justify initiating recovery proceedings, the contested decision states that there was no response to the debit note, the reminder or the letter of formal notice. In doing so, the defendant failed to state, first, that the applicant disputed the latter documents and, second, that the Belgian court ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the action brought before it by HB on the basis of the two contracts. The applicant adds that the defendant also disregarded its obligation to state reasons, since it failed to explain the reasons that led it to decide as it did in the present case. Lastly, the applicant takes the view that the Commission failed to examine, carefully and impartially, all of the relevant elements of the case in point.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 July 2021 — Société générale and Others v SRB

(Case T-387/21)

(2021/C 338/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Société générale (Paris, France), Crédit du Nord (Lille, France) and SG Option Europe (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/2021/22 of 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex-ante contributions to the SRF in so far as it concerns the applicants;

— pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the SRM Regulation, the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable: — Articles 69(1), 69(2), 70(1) and 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation; — Article 4(2) and Articles 6 and 7 of the Delegated Regulation, and Annex I thereto; — Article 4 of the Implementing Regulation;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/21, Banque postale v SRB.
Action brought on 8 July 2021 — DVB Bank v SRB

(Case T-404/21)

(2021/C 349/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: DVB Bank SE (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and M. 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 14 April 2021 on the calculation of the 2021 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/2021/22), 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 would therefore be inadmissible on the ground that it would be devoid of purpose, the applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the contested decision is legally non-existent in so far as it concerns the applicant;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 10 pleas in law, which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-389/21, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB.
Action brought on 7 July 2021 — KN v Parliament

(Case T-401/21)

(2021/C 338/47)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboudi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare the present action admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered, estimated to be in the sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 100 000;

— order the defendant to bear the entirety of the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision of the European Parliament of 28 April 2021 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2019, Section VI — European Economic and Social Committee [2020/2145(DEC)] and of the resolution of the European Parliament of 29 April 2021 with observations forming an integral part of the aforementioned decision, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 16(1) TFEU, Articles 1 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 2018/1725, (1) as well as infringement of the principle of confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings and judicial information and Article 10 of Regulation No 883/2013. (2)

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to the presumption of innocence, the principle of sound administration and the principle of proportionality.

(1) 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).

(2) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 30 July 2021 — G-Core Innovations v EUIPO — Coretransform (G CORELABS)

(Case T-454/21)

(2021/C 368/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: G-Core Innovations Sàrl (Contern, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Axel Karnøe Søndergaard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coretransform GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark G CORELABS in Orange, Red, Silver, Black and Grey — Application for registration No 14 955 017

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2021 in Case R 22/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in its entirety and allow the trademark to be registered in respect of all the goods applied for;

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

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

(Case T-423/21)

(2021/C 357/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sebastiano Gioioso (Fasano, Italy) (represented by: F. Amati, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maxi Di Srl (Belfiore, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT — Application for registration No 18 024 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2021 in Case R 1650/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 9 August 2021 — Glaxo Group v EUIPO — Cipla Europe (Shape of an inhaler)

(Case T-477/21)

(2021/C 382/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Glaxo Group Ltd (Brentford, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. de Haan and F. Verhoestraete, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cipla Europe NV (Antwerp, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union tridimensional mark (Shape of an inhaler) — European Union trade mark No 2 179 562

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2021 in Case R 1835/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to bear the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) 40/94;
—

In this regard, the applicant claims that, in order fully to comply (within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU) with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 September 2017, Ferriere Nord v Commission (C-88/15 P, EU:C:2017:716) (which had annulled a 2009 assessment decision under Article 101 TFEU), the Commission should have repaid to Ferriere Nord not only the fine paid provisionally in 2010, but also default interest on that fine to be calculated according to the rate determined in accordance with Article 83(2)(b) of Regulation No 1268/2012, which is the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations in force on the first calendar day of the month in which the deadline falls, increased by three and a half percentage points. Instead, on 25 October 2017, the Commission paid, as interest, only the interest ‘yielded’ within the meaning of Article 90(4)of Regulation No 1268/2012, which was the return obtained from the bank account into which the amount of the fine had provisionally been paid. The failure to pay default interest constitutes an infringement of primary EU law (first paragraph of Article 266 TFEU), which gives rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Commission. The amount of compensation payable for the reasons set out above will have to be capitalised from the date on which ‘yielded’ interest alone was paid until the date on which payment is actually made.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert part)

(Case T-487/21)

(2021/C 391/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Börjes Pestalozza and U. Kaufmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Representation of a cylindrical sanitary insert part)

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2021 in Case R 2327/2019-5

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) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
—

pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2021/1002 of 21 June 2021 implementing Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/997 of 21 June 2021 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3), in so far as they concern the applicant;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Measures breach the principle of effective judicial protection. It is argued that by not sending an individual notification to inform of the measures taken against the applicant, the Council breached Article 8a (2) of Council Regulation 765/2006. Further, since 18 June 2012, the applicant’s name is Open Joint Stock Company ‘Minsk Automobile Works’ — Management Company of ‘BELAVTOMAZ’ Holding. By referring to Minskii Avtomobilnyi Zavod (MAZ) / OJSC ‘MAZ’, a name that the applicant has never used as its official registered company name (either full or shortened), the Contested Measures fail to properly identify the designated entity. As a result, the applicant is not able to determine the exact scope of the Contested Measures.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 September 2021 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)

(Case T-543/21)

(2021/C 422/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Rejeunesse — Application for registration No 18 117 313

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2021 in Case R 146/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 24 August 2021 — European Paper Packaging Alliance v Commission

(Case T-518/21)

(2021/C 431/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Paper Packaging Alliance (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Di Gianni, A. Scalini and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 as well as Tables 4-2 and 4-8 of the defendant’s guidelines on single-use plastic products in accordance with Directive (EU) 2019/904 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (2) insofar as they concern paper-based products with polymeric coating;

— declare, in the alternative, that Article 3(2) of Directive (EU) 2019/904 is illegal, insofar as it includes the paper-based products with polymeric coating in the definition of ‘single-use plastic products’; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s guidelines violate the text of the Directive (EU) 2019/904, insofar as they include the paper-based products with polymeric coating within the scope of the Directive (EU) 2019/904, by means of a wrong interpretation of the term ‘main structural component’ provided for by Article 3(1) of the Directive (EU) 2019/904.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of the paper-based products with polymeric coating in the scope of Directive (EU) 2019/904 runs against the objectives of the Directive and infringes the principle of proportionality.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant overstepped the boundaries of its competences by adopting the contested guidelines and encroached upon the prerogatives of the EU legislator.

4. First plea of illegality, alleging that Article 3(2) of Directive (EU) 2019/904 is unlawful, insofar as it results in the application of this Directive to the paper-based products with polymeric coating. It is also alleged that this provision is illegal insofar as it does not provide a threshold to determine whether a product is partly made from plastic. Moreover, it is argued that this provision violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

5. Second plea of illegality, alleging that the application of Directive (EU) 2019/904, and in particular of the restrictive measures provided for in that Directive to the paper-based products with polymeric coating, constitutes an unjustified limitation to the freedom to conduct business and the right to property, enshrined, respectively, in Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(1) Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2019 L 155, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2021 C 216, p. 1-46.
Action brought on 10 August 2021 — Tralux and Others v Parliament

(Case T-488/21)

(2021/C 422/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tralux, Société Générale de travaux — Luxembourg Sàrl (Leudelange, Luxembourg), Eric Soldermann, René-Pierre Ortiz, Rodrigue Thiemann, Richard Lang, Marie Real, Olivier Lingelser, Architectes Associés, Aea Architectes (Mulhouse, France), Energie & Environnement — Ingénieurs Conseils (Niederanven, Luxembourg), Edeis (Ivry-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: G. Krieger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find the present action to be admissible;

— on the substance, find the action to be justified and well founded;

and accordingly,

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 July 2021 to reject the applicants’ tender of 16 April 2021.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against the decision to reject their offer filed in response to tender procedure No 06D10/2020/SI2KAD-01 for the design and construction of a ‘Europa Experience’ space and a conference centre in Luxembourg, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 51 of Regulation 2018/1046. (1) The applicants rely on several arguments in support of that plea. Firstly, they submit that they met the selection criteria and, in particular, the minimum staffing requirement. Secondly, the applicants argue that the tender specifications did not require the production of supporting documents, failing which the tender would be disregarded. Finally, they added that clarifications to the tender could have been submitted, at the request of the contracting authority, after the submission of their tender. In any event, according to the applicants, those clarifications were not such as to substantially alter the documents submitted.

(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1).
—

determine that the material damage amounts to at least EUR 162 million together with a compensatory interest starting at 11 July 2016 until delivery of the judgment in the present case and with corresponding default interest from the date of delivery of judgment until its payment in full; and