ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Action brought on 20 September 2021 — TestBioTech v Commission

(Case T-606/21)

(2021/C 471/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decision of 8 July 2021, refusing to revoke or to amend the defendant’s implementing decision (EU) 2021/66 (1), by which Monsanto Europe SA has been permitted, under the GM Regulation (2), to market genetically modified soybean MON 87751 x MON 87701 x MON 87708 x MON 89788 and its sub-combinations in the EU;

— order any other measure deemed appropriate; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential impact of gene stacking on gene expression in combination with herbicide applications and/or failed to require an adequate assessment under real-world conditions of repeated and/or high application of the two herbicides to which the modified soybean expresses tolerance.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in failing to give any or any adequate consideration to the potential for toxicity, immunogenicity and/or allergenicity in the modified soybean as a result of synergistic effects between the proteins it is genetically modified to express, naturally occurring protease inhibitors in soybeans, exposure to herbicide and/or herbicide residue in the harvest and/or failed to require animal feeding trials of the stack to be conducted.

(1) OJ 2021 L 26, p. 44.

(2) Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 September 2021 — Santos v EUIPO (Shape of a citrus press)

(Case T-574/21)

(2021/C 462/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Santos (Vaulx-en-Velin, France) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union tridimensional mark, claiming the colours Pantone Yellow 1235C, NCS Green S 30 50 G 50 Y (Shape of a citrus press) — Application for registration No 18 005 754

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 July 2021 in Case R 281/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Primagran v EUIPO — Primagaz (prımagran)

(Case T-624/21)

(2021/C 481/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Primagran sp. z o.o. (Stegna, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz (Paris, France)

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 prımagran — Application for registration No 18 051 750

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 July 2021 in Case R 2486/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant’s appeal R 2486/2020-4 against EUIPO’s Opposition Division’s decision of 30 October 2020 ruling on EUTM application No 18 051 750 and ordered each party to bear its own costs for the opposition and the appeal proceedings;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the principle of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 29 September 2021 — Puma v EUIPO — Vaillant (Puma)

(Case T-623/21)

(2021/C 471/81)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vaillant GmbH (Remscheid, Germany)

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 Puma — Application for registration No 17 867 529

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2021 in Case R 1875/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision and refuse the application for the contested mark;

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

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law, alleging that if, the exception claimed by the Commission was applicable, the Commission erred in failing to recognise that the applicant’s request arose in exceptional circumstances, and erred in holding that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure of the requested information. Thus, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision constitutes an infringement of the last sentence of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. — The extreme measures implemented by Ireland in relation to inter-EU travel trespassed upon civil liberties and fundamental rights in a manner entirely unprecedented in the history of the Union. As a result, several fundamental freedoms were severely affected, including the right to freedom of movement of persons, the right to engage in work and the right of access to justice. Given the unprecedented nature of the restrictions implemented, coupled with the gross infringements upon fundamental rights, the applicant claims that his request clearly arose in exceptional circumstances, which the Commission failed to consider in arriving at its decision to refuse disclosure. Further, the applicant claims that the Commission’s preference for confidentiality in the context of this case constitutes an abdication of duty to guarantee the right of relevant members of the public to seek an effective remedy and have a fair hearing within a reasonable time. — By refusing to disseminate the documentation at issue, relevant citizens are placed at a significant disadvantage and such refusal has grossly impeded their ability to effectively challenge the purported grounds for suspending fundamental rights related to travel within the EU. Moreover, the applicant claims that, by failing to disclose the documentation sought, the Commission has unjustifiably obstructed the ability of relevant EU citizens to hold their government to account for the severe infringements imposed upon on their rights guaranteed under EU law, and as such, this factor should have weighed in favour of honouring the principle of transparency as envisaged by the Treaties and Regulation No 1049/2001. — The applicant asserts, finally, that it is common case that the right of access to information is a vital tool for defending fundamental rights and civil liberties in the EU, for ensuring access to justice in general and in environmental matters such as in the instant matter and for holding governments to account. In this case, the documentation at issue will either disclose concrete benefit(s) to public health (as envisaged by relevant Council Recommendations), which justify the measures implemented to tackle COVID-19, or it will not. In light of the fact that the impugned measures are unprecedented, extreme and onerous on relevant EU citizens wishing to exercise their right to freedom of movement and/or engage in work within the EU, access to the requested documentation is a matter of pressing public interest that will facilitate members of the relative public to take action to defend and protect their fundamental rights and hold the Government of Ireland to account for the extreme measures it has implemented.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 25 October 2021 — energy cake v EUIPO — Foodtastic (ENERGY CAKE)

(Case T-686/21)

(2021/C 513/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: energy cake GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Bernegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Foodtastic GmbH (Dortmund, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ENERGY CAKE’ — European Union trade mark No 14 808 935

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2021 in Case R 2324/2020-5

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 59(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 20 October 2021 — Funline International v EUIPO (AMSTERDAM POPPERS)

(Case T-680/21)

(2021/C 502/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Funline International (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: V. Echevarría García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark AMSTERDAM POPPERS — Application for registration No 18 354 314

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2021 in Case R 439/2021-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— grant the mark in its entirety;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.

Plea in law
Action brought on 1 November 2021 — WhatsApp Ireland v EDPB

(Case T-709/21)

(2022/C 2/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: WhatsApp Ireland Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann, F. Louis, A. Vallery, lawyers, P. Nolan, B. Johnston, C. Monaghan, Solicitors, P. Sreenan, D. McGrath, C. Geoghegan and E. Egan McGrath, Barristers-at-Law)

Defendant: European Data Protection Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision 1/2021 of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) of 28 July 2021, in total or, in the alternative, in its relevant parts, and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action to annul the binding decision 1/2021 of the EDPB of 28 July 2021, on the dispute arisen on the draft decision of the Irish Supervisory Authority regarding WhatsApp Ireland under Article 65(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council (GDPR) (1), the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the EDPB exceeded its competence under Article 65 of GDPR.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Articles 13(1)(d) and 12(1) GDPR by interpreting and applying these provisions and WhatsApp’s transparency obligations excessively by requesting WhatsApp to provide unrequired information.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed Article 4(1) GDPR by interpreting and applying this provision and the term ‘personal data’ excessively.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging the EDPB violated the presumption of innocence as enshrined in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU by inappropriately shifting the burden of proof onto WhatsApp to demonstrate that its processing environment is such that the risks of re-identification of data subjects is purely speculative.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB infringed the right to good administration as enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU by disregarding WhatsApp’s right to be heard and the EDPB’s obligations to carefully and impartially examine evidence and to adequately state reasons.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated Article 83 GDPR and various underlying principles governing the determination of fines under the GDPR.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the EDPB violated the principle of legal certainty by failing to acknowledge that its decision puts forward novel interpretations and applications of several provisions of the GDPR, with the consequence that the infringement was unpredictable.

(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1)
—

In that regard, the applicant claims that (i) the documents on which the contested decision is based are incoherent and abnormal, (ii) the reasoning in the letter of 25 June 2019 suspending the contract is incorrect and incoherent, (iii) the obligation to state reasons in the investigation documents of the European Anti-Fraud Office has not been fulfilled and (iv) the obligation to state reasons has not been fulfilled due to the indeterminate and generic nature of the European Anti-Fraud Office’s conclusions, which are lacking in substance.
Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission

(Case T-740/21)

(2022/C 24/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure;

— annul the contested decisions;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against, first, the decision of the Commission requesting Abengoa SA and Abengoa Bioenergia SA to restart, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks and, second, the decision to reopen that procedure, the applicants rely on a single plea alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements.

The applicants submit that in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission infringes the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not provide for the Commission reopening a settlement procedure at that stage of the proceedings, let alone by precluding any discussion concerning the case overview disclosed in an initial settlement procedure in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested decisions lead to a clear infringement of their rights of defence.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 5 November 2021 — Bakhanovich v Council

(Case T-583/21)

(2022/C 11/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Aliaksandr Bakhanovich (Brest, Belarus) (represented by: D. Litvinski, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul 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, (1) in so far as it concerns the applicant;

— 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, (2) in so far as it concerns 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 which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-556/21, Lyubetskaya v Council.

(1) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 3.

(2) OJ 2021 L 219I, p. 70.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Preventicus v EUIPO (NIGHTWATCH)

(Case T-742/21)

(2022/C 37/64)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Preventicus GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark NIGTHWATCH — Application for registration No 17 996 007 — Refusal — Request for conversion of an EU trade mark application into a national trade mark application for the United Kingdom

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2021 in Case R 1241/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— orders the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before the EUIPO.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 139 (1) in conjunction with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of the right to a fair and timely handling of the matter pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 17 November 2021 — Aprile and Commerciale Italiana v EUIPO — DC Comics partnership (Device of a stylized depiction of a black bat inside a white oval frame)

(Case T-735/21)

(2022/C 37/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Luigi Aprile (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy), Commerciale Italiana Srl (Nola, Italy) (represented by: C. Saettel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DC Comics partnership (Burbank, California, 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: European Union figurative mark (Device of a stylised depiction of a black bat inside a white oval frame) — European Union trade mark No 38 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2021 in Case R 1447/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— find the application admissible;

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;
Action brought on 10 December 2021 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-769/21)

(2022/C 51/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, P. Gjørtler, V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

— order the European Commission to bear applicant’s and its own legal costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action to annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 (1), the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 (2) — manifest error of assessment by the Commission’s services.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Chinese and Taiwanese products — manifest error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 2(6a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016, concerning the legal status of the Report by which the European Commission establishes the existence of significant market distortions in a certain country or a certain sector in that country and use of such reports for the dumping determination.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1483 of 15 September 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (JO 2021 L 327, p. 1)

(2) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21)