ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
—

annul the decision of 8 February 2021 of the European Commission (appointing authority) in that it rejects in part the applicant’s claims of 2 October 2020 based on psychological harassment for which the European Commission is liable on the basis of Articles12a(1) and (3) of the Staff Regulations, and more specifically by not acknowledging the harassment suffered since November 2014, by committing manifest errors of assessment of the alleged facts, by not drawing the appropriate conclusions, by infringing its obligation to provide assistance and by refusing to open the recognition procedure in respect of the applicant’s invisible mental disability before the reintegration procedure following the applicant being declared unfit to work and by refusing to determine reasonable accommodations for the performance of the essential functions of the applicant’s employment such as part-time work on medical grounds, teleworking and refresher training, in accordance with Articles 1d(4) and 33 of the Staff Regulations, Article 15 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations and Commission Decision C(2004) 1318 of 7 April 2004;
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 7 January 2022 — Medivet Group v EUIPO (MEDIVET)

(Case T-11/22)

(2022/C 109/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Medivet Group Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Kloth, R. Briske and M. Tillwich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MEDIVET — Application for registration No 18 132 743

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 October 2021 in Case R 1066/2021-2

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;
Action brought on 8 January 2022 — Tóth v Commission

(Case T-17/22)

(2022/C 84/74)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Bertalan Tóth (Pécs, Hungary) (represented by: Á. Baratta and B. Czudar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to refuse access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’ by not giving a decision, within the time limit laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) on the confirmatory application for access submitted by the applicant.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. — OLAF failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons by refusing, without providing justification in accordance with the law, access to the document entitled ‘Final Report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) OF/2015/0034/B4 relating to public lighting activities by Élios Innovatív Zrt.’.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the refusal to grant the request for access is unlawful. — OLAF refused to grant the request for access without satisfying any of the exceptions provided for in Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 that would justify the refusal of the requests for access.

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

Action brought on 28 January 2022 — Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne v EUIPO — Ambrosetti Group Ltd (TEHA)

(Case T-60/22)

(2022/C 128/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Chambre de commerce et d’industrie territoriale de la Marne en Champagne (Châlons-en-Champagne, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ambrosetti Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

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: International registration designating the European Union of figurative mark TEHA — International registration designating the European Union No 1 404 100

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2021 in Case R 839/2021-4

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’s legal predecessor for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 24 January 2022 — International Masis Tabak v EUIPO — Philip Morris Brands (Representation of a pack of cigarettes)

(Case T-44/22)

(2022/C 119/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: International Masis Tabak LLC (Masis, Armenia) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias and K. Dimidjian-Lecompte, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl (Neuchâtel, Switzerland)

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 figurative mark (Representation of a pack of cigarettes) — International registration designating the European Union No 1 434 506

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2021 in Case R 261/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— upheld the appeal and annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and the intervener, if it was the case, to bear the costs incurred by the applicant before the General Court.

Plea in law
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 14 February 2022 — Selimfiber v EUIPO — Qureshi (SPETRA)

(Case T-83/22)

(2022/C 148/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Selimfiber Co. Ltd (Gimpo-si, Republic of Korea) (represented by: J. Klaus and M. Odink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mohammad Sohail Qureshi (Bradford, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SPETRA — Application for registration No 18 271 624

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 684/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs of and occasioned by this application and other incurred costs; alternatively if the other party before the EUIPO intervenes, hold it and the defendant jointly and severally liable for those costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 February 2022 — OF v Commission

(Case T-80/22)

(2022/C 138/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: OF (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— primarily, — annul the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing an extension of family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren; — annul the decision of 10 May 2021 of PMO.1 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021; — annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint dated 12 November 2021;

— in the alternative, — order the defendant to pay compensation for psychological and material damage resulting from breach of administrative duty on the part of the administration, assessed at EUR 56 504,61;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action for annulment of the decision of 13 April 2021 of PMO.1 refusing to extend family allowances for the financial support of stepchildren, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging errors of law and fact, erroneous and contradictory reasoning, a heavier burden of proof, failure to taken into account the specific circumstances of the case and infringement of the concept of maintenance.

2. Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of forseeability, of legal certainty and of consistent application of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’) and failure to provide adequate reasons.

3. Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of the principle of affirmative action, unlawful rejection of the legalised certificate, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the right of every person to be heard before any decision affecting their interests or situation is taken.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the applicant’s situation and the reality of financial support for the stepchildren.

In support of her application for annulment of the decision of PMO.1 of 10 May 2021 to implement Article 85 adopted pursuant to the decision of 13 April 2021, the applicant relies on two pleas in law

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to be heard.
Action brought on 11 February 2022 — Euranimi v Commission

(Case T-81/22)

(2022/C 148/49)

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 and V. Villante, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia, (1) as published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 18 November 2021, concerning the measures adopted in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding AD670;

— order the European Commission to bear applicant’s legal 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 breach of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) with regard to the cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from the countries concerned — infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence — manifest error of assessment.

2. Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, with regard to the injury and causation assessment for both Indian and Indonesia’s originating products — manifest error of assessment.

3. Third plea in law, alleging wrong assessment of the Union interest justifying the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

(1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2012 of 17 November 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in India and Indonesia (OJ 2021 L 410, p. 153).

(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).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 8 February 2022 — Walsall Conduits v EUIPO — Liberty Engineering (Willenhall) (WALSALL CONDUITS)

(Case T-73/22)

(2022/C 148/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Walsall Conduits Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Bey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liberty Engineering (Willenhall) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark WALSALL CONDUITS — Application for registration No 16 369 944

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2021 in Case R 575/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— uphold the action;

— annul the contested decision;

— hold the opposition well-founded and reject the contested trade mark application in its entirety; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Opposition Division of the EUIPO;

— order EUIPO and Shifter (Willenhall) Limited to pay the costs of proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal of the Office.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 the Council;

— Infringement of Article 11(1), (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 the Council;

— Infringement of Articles 41(1) and 47(1), (2) of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights;
1.

First plea in law, alleging no grounds for refusal under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) — The Commission failed to set out any commercial reasons worthy of protection with regard to the parties to cartel proceedings AT.40178 — Car Emissions, within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and failed to carry out a case-by-case examination. — The Commission cannot rely on the protection of investigations, in view of the fact that this case concerns a closed cartel investigation with a decision that has become final and the Commission also failed to carry out a case-by-case examination. — The Commission relies on the general presumption of non-disclosure, despite the fact that the conditions provided for in the first and/or third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 are not met which leads to an inadmissible distortion of the ‘rule-exception relationship’ of the right of access.
Action brought on 26 January 2022 — United Kingdom v Commission

(Case T-56/22)

(2022/C 158/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Baxter, Agent, and T. Buley, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s Implementing Decision (EU) No 2021/2019 (1) in so far as it excludes from European Union’s financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant’s accredited paying agencies under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for the stated reason of weakness in the definition of ‘active farmer — connected companies’; and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 (2) is wrong. In the applicant’s view, Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 is concerned only with direct payments to farmers (as defined in Article 4 of the aforementioned Regulation) who themselves operate the relevant infrastructure or services. The applicant maintains that the defendant held wrongly because:

— i. The language and the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 does not have the effect of prohibiting payments to a farmer merely because some connected entity undertakes an activity on the negative list in this article.

— ii. There is no purposive or teleological basis for the Commission’s interpretation of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013, which does not accord with the purposes of this article.

(1) OJ 2021, L 413, p. 3.

(2) Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013, L 347, p. 608).
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)

(Case T-155/22)

(2022/C 198/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

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 STAYER — European Union trade mark No 9 498 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 December 2021 in Case R 931/2021-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed general principles of Community law and by adopting Regulation 2021/2288 infringed: — the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition on discrimination in restricting the validity of the digital certificate to 270 days from the date of completion of the primary vaccination series, in the interests of facilitating freedom of movement for holders of valid digital certificates (that is, persons who have had the booster vaccination, who supposedly have greater immunity against the Omicron variant of the virus), while it excluded from the scope of the contested measure an indeterminate circle of persons defined by their age, profession, lifestyle or other criteria (irrespective of whether they are vaccinated or not at all vaccinated), thereby discriminating against a large group of persons who have completed the primary vaccination series and have caught covid, even though according to the scientific evidence those individuals with so-called ‘hybrid immunity’ are of a comparable or lower risk to society from the point of view of the transfer of infection and burden on the health system than individuals whose unrestricted digital certificate remains valid or who are otherwise excluded from the scope of the contested measure and who are ‘de jure’ free of infection. — the principle of proportionality, in so far as it failed to put forward reasons based on qualitative, and where possible quantitative, data, that is to say failed to assess properly the available scientific data on the group of persons who could pose a risk of covid infection to another individual, and further failed to state due reasons as to why the precise measure chosen, which restricts the validity of the EU Digital COVID Certificate to a period of a maximum of 270 days from the date of receiving the last dose in the primary vaccination series, is the best means of achieving the EU’s objectives so far as concerns the reactions to the covid-19 pandemic and the mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, because by such a measure it supports an increase in the vaccination uptake of the so-called ‘booster shot’ among the population, without weighing up (properly justifying) other potential alternatives.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 11 April 2022 — Eggers & Franke v EUIPO — E. & J. Gallo Winery (EF)

(Case T-183/22)

(2022/C 207/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Eggers & Franke Holding GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Ebert-Weidenfeller and H. Förster, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: E. & J. Gallo Winery (Modesto, California, United States)

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 EF — Application for registration No 17 927 894

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2022 in Case R 729/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and in case of an intervention also the intervener to pay the costs.

Plea in law
Action brought on 14 March 2022 — Netherlands v Commission

(Case T-137/22)

(2022/C 198/77)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: and M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the Commission decision bearing reference number Ares (2022) 99942 refusing the request of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for an extension by 4 years in addition to the 8-year period rule for the recovery of unduly paid amounts resulting from the FresQ case, and

— order the Commission 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 contested decision is based on an erroneous assumption that the recovery procedure in the FresQ case is not yet finalised.
Official Journal of the European Union

Action brought on 22 March 2022 — Dehaen v EUIPO — National Geographic Society (NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC)

(Case T-157/22)

(2022/C 207/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Karolien Dehaen (Schilde, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis and A. Van der Planken, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: National Geographic Society (Washington, District of Columbia, 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 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC –European Union trade mark No 2 148 799

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 December 2021 in Case R 972/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law