ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 November 2022 — Deripaska v Council

(Case T-732/22)

(2023/C 24/91)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Oleg Vladimirovich Deripaska (Khutor Sokolsky, Russia) (represented by: T. Bontinck, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it makes Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP of 17 March 2014, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/582 of 8 April 2022, which included the applicant’s name in the annex to Decision 2014/145, applicable until 15 March 2023;

— annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it maintains the applicant’s name in the list set out in Annex I to Regulation (EU) 269/2014 of 17 March 2014;

— order the Council to make a provisional payment of EUR 1 000 000 in respect of the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the costs.

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 infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and of the duty to state reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment regarding the reasons advanced by the Council.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality and of fundamental rights.

(1) Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 November 2022 — Newalliance v Commission

(Case T-683/22)

(2023/C 24/64)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Newalliance Comércio Internacional, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Gemas Donário and S. Soares, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law that are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-553/22, Thorn Investments v Commission.
Action brought on 15 November 2022 — AFG v Commission

(Case T-722/22)

(2023/C 24/85)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: AFG SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: S. Estima Martins, F. Castro Guedes and L. Seifert Guincho, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision C(2020) 8550 final of 4 December 2020 on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal in favour of the Madeira Free Zone (MFZ) — Regime III, published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L 217 of 22 August 2022, page 49;

— order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

First plea in law, alleging error of law in that the measure at issue does not constitute State aid, in so far as the Commission wrongly considered that that scheme constitutes a selective measure, and breach of the obligation to state reasons, enshrined in Article 296 TFEU, in respect of the analysis of the condition relating to selectivity.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Zona Franca da Madeira — Regime III aid scheme has been implemented in accordance with the Commission Decisions of 2007 and 2017 and with the rules laid down in Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law, specifically the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, and proportionality.
Action brought on 21 September 2022 — Ferreira de Macedo Silva v Frontex

(Case T-595/22)

(2023/C 35/78)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Miguel Ferreira de Macedo Silva (Cercal do Alentejo, Portugal) (represented by: L. Cosme Nunes Rolo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 29 August 2022 of the Deputy Executive Director for Information Management and Processes of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), acting as Appointing Authority, to dismiss him before the end of probationary period as temporary staff of Standing Corps, Cat. 1;

— order that Frontex, in case of impossible readmission in time in Batch 8, pay all costs related to the fulfilment of the five year contract, and legal expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, and violation of the principle of equal treatment in employment (reference: Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000). (1)

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and also of the right to good administration and the right to be heard.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 2 December 2022 — Nieß v EUIPO — Thema Products (Gartenlux)

(Case T-753/22)

(2023/C 24/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Andrea Nieß (Kempen, Germany) (represented by: A. Erlenhardt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thema Products BV (Venlo, Netherlands)

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 Gartenlux — Application No 18 391 572

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2022 in Case R 608/2022-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 February 2022;

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

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the second sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430;
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the grounds for the applicant’s inclusion on the sanctions list is factually incorrect and/or irrelevant. — first branch: the applicant is not active in specifically those economic sectors that constitute a significant source of income for the Government of the Russian Federation; — second branch: the applicant does not support or implement actions or policies which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine or its stability or security. The applicant is not a shareholder of JSC Detyarev Plant; — third branch: the applicant does not materially or financially support the Government of the Russian Federation. The Monolit Fonds is a politically neutral charitable organisation and the medals and rewards received do not constitute evidence of material or financial support to the targeted Government of the Russian Federation; — fourth branch: the applicant does not benefit from the Government of the Russian Federation. Neither via the Monolit Fonds nor by any other means does the applicant benefit economically or otherwise from the Government of the Russian Federation; — fifth branch: the cited facts are obsolete, dated and irrelevant to proceed with (extension of the) sanctioning of the applicant; — sixth branch: the Council does not satisfy the burden of proof incumbent upon it. The Council relies exclusively, after all, on biased, incorrect and unverified information sources. There is no objective, trustworthy evidence for the Council’s claims.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 13 November 2022 — Funchinvest v Commission

(Case T-712/22)

(2023/C 35/88)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fuchinvest Real Estate Participações, Unipessoal, Lda (Zona Franca da Madeira) (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: A. Ferreira Correia and R. da Palma Borges, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision (EU) 2022/1414 of 4 December 2020, on aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) (ex 2018/NN) implemented by Portugal for Zona Franca da Madeira (ZFM) — Regime III (notified under document C(2020) 8550) (OJ 2022 L 217, p. 49), the applicant relies on five pleas in law which, in essence, are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-702/22, TA v Commission.
2.

Second plea, alleging illegality of the decision to reject the complaint. The applicant submits, in that regard, that the principle of sound administration, enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, was not respected and that the applicant’s case was not handled impartially.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/18

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — Alferink and Others v Commission

(Case T-94/98) (1)

(Actions for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into non-marketing undertakings - Requirement that production be on the initial SLOM holding - Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 - Allegedly ambiguous wording of the applicable provision - Principle of legal certainty)

(2008/C 197/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Alfonsius Alferink, (Heeten, Netherlands), and the other 67 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by H. Bronkhorst and E. Pijnacker Hordijk, subsequently by H. Bronkhorst, E. Pijnacker Hordijk and J. Sluysmans, and finally by E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn, Agent)

Re:

Claims for damages under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants by reason of the fact that the Commission infringed the principle of legal certainty when it adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 of 20 April 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1989 L 110, p. 27), which did not provide clearly and precisely that milk production had to be resumed from the initial SLOM holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Alfonsius Alferink and the other 67 applicants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 180/39

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Acegas v Commission

(Case T-309/02) (1)

(State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)

2009/C 180/71

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: F. Devescovi, F. Ferletic, L. Daniele, F. Spitareli and S. Gobbato, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

2. Orders Acegas-APS SpA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/22

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission

(Case T-43/03) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - ‘Info point Europe’ label - Statements made by an agent of the Commission about the applicant)

(2008/C 107/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau and N. Benoît, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, agent)

Re:

Application for damages for harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the statements made by the Commission's agent in Marseille at the meeting on 23 January 2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application.

2. Orders the Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 69/34

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 February 2009 — Deutsche Post and DHL International v Commission

(Case T-388/03) (1)

(State aid - Decision not to raise objections - Action for annulment - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Serious difficulties)

(2009/C 69/79)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) and DHL International (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 raising no objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to various measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA, the Belgian public postal undertaking.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 2508 final of 23 July 2003 raising no objections, following the preliminary examination procedure provided for in Article 88(3) EC, to various measures adopted by the Belgian authorities in favour of La Poste SA, the Belgian public postal undertaking;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Deutsche Post AG and DHL International.

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/19

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Abril Sánchez and Ricote Saugar (BoomerangTV)

(Case T-420/03) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark BoomerangTV - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks BOOMERANG and Boomerang - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - No damage to reputation - Failure to produce evidence before the Opposition Division of the existence of certain earlier trade marks or translations thereof - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(c), Article 8(5) and Article 74(2) of Regulation EC No 40/94 - Rule 16(2) and (3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

(2008/C 197/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo and E. López Leiva, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: José Matías Abril Sánchez and Pedro Ricote Saugar (Madrid) (represented by: J.M. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2003 (Case R 88/2003-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA, and J.M. Abril Sánchez and P. Ricote Saugar.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/11

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission

(Case T-205/04) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Career evaluation report - 2001/2002 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 8/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Re:

On the one hand, annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 February 2004 rejecting his complaint and, on the other, payment of compensation for the non-material suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders each party to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/18

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-18/04) (1)

(Social Security - Application for assumption of responsibility for medical expenses - Implied rejection of the application)

(2008/C 183/37)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: initially A. Distante, then G. Cipressa, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Curral, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

First, an application for annulment of the Appointing Authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's application of 25 November 2002 for reimbursement of 100 % of medical expenses under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, secondly, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection of the application of 25 November 2002, thirdly, an application for a declaration of the applicant's entitlement, under Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to reimbursement of 100 % of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment for the diseases from which he suffered and, fourthly, an application for an order that the Commission pay 100 % of those medical expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the implied rejection of the application of 25 November 2002;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/26

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Citigroup v OHIM — Link Interchange Network (WORLDLINK)

(Case T-325/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark WORLDLINK - Earlier national figurative mark LiNK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of services covered in the trade mark application - Identity of services - Similarity of signs - Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 92/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Citigroup, Inc. formerly Citicorp (New York, New York, United States) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, lawyers and C. Schulte, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard and A. Renck)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Link Interchange Network Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister, and R. Brown, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2004 (Case R 789/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Link Interchange Network Ltd and Citigroup, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Citigroup, Inc. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 19/24

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 2 December 2008 — Karatzoglou v EAR

(Case T-471/04) (1)

(Staff cases - Temporary staff - Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside - Termination of contract - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Misuse of powers - Principle of sound administration)

(2009/C 19/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Karatzoglou (Préveza, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EAR of 26 February 2004 to terminate the applicant's contract of employment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Mr Georgios Karatzoglou and the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) each to bear their own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 301/30

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — SGL Carbon v Commission

(Case T-68/04) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Default interest)

(2008/C 301/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: SGL Carbon AG (Wiesbaden, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann and A. von Bonin, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and W. Mölls, acting as Agents, and H.-J. Freund, lawyer)

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products) and, in the alternative, an application for the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders SGL Carbon AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.