ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/27

Action brought on 4 February 2013 — ANKO v Commission

(Case T-64/13)

2013/C 86/46

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopion, Emporiou kai Viomikhanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— declare that the applicant does not have to refund as wrongly paid the sum which the Commission paid to it for the DOC@HAND project;

— declare that the applicant does not have to pay the Commission liquidated damages for the DOC@HAND project;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns liability of the Commission under contract No 508015 relating to the carrying out of the project ‘Knowledge Sharing and Decision Support for Healthcare Professionals’ (DOC@HAND), pursuant to Article 272 TFEU. Specifically, the applicant submits that, although it performed its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the aforementioned contract, of the principle of good faith, of the prohibition of the abuse of rights, and of proportionality, sought reimbursement of the sums paid to it.

For that reason, the applicant submits, first, that it does not have to refund as wrongly paid the whole of the sum which the Commission paid to it for the DOC@HAND project and, second, that it does not have to pay the Commission liquidated damages for the DOC@HAND project.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/25

Action brought on 30 January 2013 — Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald v OHIM — Vieweg (goldstück)

(Case T-47/13)

2013/C 86/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Goldsteig Käsereien Bayerwald GmbH (Cham, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Christin Vieweg (Sonneberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2012 in Case R 2589/2011-1;

— Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Christin Vieweg

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word element ‘goldstück’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 153 677

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘GOLDSTEIG’ for goods and services in Classes 29 and 43

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the applicant’s opposition was rejected

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/36

Action brought on 19 February 2013 — Ludwig Schokolade v OHIM — Immergut (TrinkFix)

(Case T-105/13)

2013/C 108/86

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ludwig Schokolade GmbH & Co. KG (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: S. Fischer and A. Brodkorb, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG (Elsdorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 December 2012 in Case R 34/2012-1;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings before it.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TrinkFix’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9 045 634

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Immergut GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word mark ‘Drinkfit’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/38

Action brought on 11 February 2013 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA

(Case T-73/13)

2013/C 114/60

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: InterMune UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom); InterMune, Inc. (Brisbane, United States); and InterMune International AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith and A. Williams, Solicitors, T. de la Mare, Barrister, and F. Campbell, lawyer)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the decision communicated by the defendant to the applicants on 15 January 2013 to release certain information under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), insofar as that decision concerns the release of information previously submitted by the applicants to the defendant which is not already in the public domain; and

— Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed properly to engage in the balancing exercise which it is required to conduct under Article 4.2 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, in the sense of assessing whether there is, in fact, any public interest in disclosure of the disputed information which overrides the need to protect the applicants’ commercial interests from the substantial damage which would be caused by such disclosure.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has failed properly to take into account other important factors relevant to the balancing exercise required by law, including: — the requirements of specific EU legislation (notably Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (2), in particular its Article 14.11); — the interpretative obligations placed upon all EU institutions when construing EU legislation by Article 39.3 of TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights); — the fundamental rights to property and to privacy, as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, assessed in light of a careful consideration of all relevant facts so as to enable a fact-sensitive proportionality analysis; and — the duty to follow its own published guidance and policies on the importance of protecting commercially confidential information.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that if the defendant had properly carried out the required balancing exercise, and properly considered all relevant factors, the only lawful, proportionate and/or reasonable conclusion would have been that the disputed information should not be released.

(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)

(2) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/23

Action brought on 1 March 2013 — Lardini v OHIM (Representation of a flower)

(Case T-131/13)

2013/C 141/41

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Lardini Srl (Filottrano, Italy) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 in Case R 2578/2011-1; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings in their entirety, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure in Case R 2578/2011-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Position mark in the form of a flower for goods in Class 25

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/18

Action brought on 22 February 2013 — Rot Front/OHIM — Rakhat (Macka)

(Case T-96/13)

2013/C 123/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: B. Térauda, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rakhat AO (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Macka’ for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 9 556 135

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing a device of bag with the word element ‘Macka’ for ‘confectionery’ goods in Greece and Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
—

It should also be found that there has been a manifest error of assessment and a failure to state the reasons in applying the rescuing and restructuring guidelines, in so far as the Commission (i) distorted the meaning of the requirement that the company’s long-term viability must be restored, (ii) erred in rejecting the compensatory measures offered by SEA in the context of the restructuring of its subsidiary and (iii) failed to have due regard to the fact that the disputed capital injections were at all times carried out strictly on the basis of what was necessary for the restructuring of the company.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/22

Action brought on 8 March 2013 — Scheepsbouw Nederland v Commission

(Case T-140/13)

2013/C 147/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Scheepsbouw Nederland (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, and G. Forwood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 November 2012 in case SA.34736 (Early depreciation of certain assets acquired through a financial leasing), published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 13 December 2012 (OJ 2012 C 384, p. 2); and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to comply with Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 4(2) and 4(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1).

In this respect, the applicant argues that, in view of the circumstances of the case, as well as the insufficient and incomplete nature of the substantive examination carried out by the Commission during the preliminary examination procedure, there is sufficient evidence of the existence of serious difficulties as to the assessment of the proposed measure. The Commission was therefore not properly able to conclude, following its preliminary examination, that the measure in question was not State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission had no choice but to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 141/25

Action brought on 21 March 2013 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (AFRICAN SIMBA)

(Case T-172/13)

2013/C 141/45

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth-Stadeln, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2013 in Case 157/2012-4 and dismiss the opposition in its entirety as a result of a lack of similarity between the goods and/or signs and grant registration of the Community trade mark ‘AFRICAN SIMBA’ (application No 7 5 4175) in the form applied for;

— order OHIM and — in the case of written intervention — the opponent to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARFICAN SIMBA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7 534 175

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘Simba’, and international word mark ‘SIMBA’ for goods in Class 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 42(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 147/25

Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Bank Mellat v Council

(Case T-160/13)

2013/C 147/45

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bank Mellat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 (1); and/or

— Annul Article 1(15) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 in so far as it applies to the applicant; and

— Declare Article 1(6) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP (2) inapplicable to the applicant; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is not a ‘necessary measure’ and so lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU in that it is not rationally connected with the relevant foreign policy aim.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is in any event disproportionate to the foreign policy aim allegedly pursued and accordingly lacks any legal basis under Article 215 TFEU.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo is contrary to the general principles of EU law and Article 215(3) TFEU in particular, it is contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty, non–arbitrariness and the requirement that sanctions contain necessary legal safeguards.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Financial Embargo violates the applicant’s property rights, rights to trade and rights to free movement of capital and the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34)

(2) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 114/44

Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Italy v Commission

(Case T-125/13)

2013/C 114/67

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision C(2012) 9448 final of 19 December 2012, notified on 20 December 2012, relating to the capital injections provided by SEA SpA in favour of SEA Handling SpA;

— order the Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the Italian Republic contests the Commission decision declaring that the measures put in place by SEA SpA, the concession-holder responsible for the management of Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate airports, in favour of SEA Handling SpA, the company responsible for the operation of groundhandling services at those airports — measures which, in essence, consist in repeated capital injections to set off operating losses — constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market.

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

1. First plea in law: breach of the principles of good administration and legal certainty. — It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision, which also gives rise rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the aid recipients concerning the legality of the measures, was adopted in breach of the principles of good administration and legal certainty, both because of the excessive duration of the whole procedure, in particular the preliminary investigation, and because of the doubts arising in relation to the findings and approaches adopted by the Commission in the course of that procedure.

2. Second plea in law: breach of essential procedural requirements, in the form of breach of the right to be heard and failure to undertake adequate preliminary inquiries. — It is submitted in that regard that the contested decision was adopted in breach of the parties’ right to be heard and the rights of the defence, as a result of the fact that the Commission extended the scope of the examination to cover a period falling outside the scope of the decision opening a formal investigation.

3. Third plea in law: infringement of Article 107 TFEU and Article 108(3) TFEU and erroneous reconstruction of the facts, as well as failure to state adequate reasons for imputing the measures at issue to the public authorities. — According to the Italian Republic, the contested decision errs in finding the measures at issue to be imputable to the public authorities and fails, in any event, to provide adequate evidence or sufficient reasoning on that point.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/30

Action brought on 5 February 2013 — Novartis/OHMI (CARE TO CARE)

(Case T-68/13)

2013/C 108/76

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 29 November 2012 — R 953/2012-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARE TO CARE’ for services in classes 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 10 224 657

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2.

Second plea in law, alleging serious deficiencies in the determination and assessment of the relevant facts and/or breach of the obligation to state reasons and/or infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU by the Commission’s incorrect application of the private investor principle Overall, the applicants did not obtain a financial benefit, let alone any financial benefit that might be regarded as unlawful State aid. The Commission miscalculated the amount of the alleged benefit in that it, inter alia, attributed 100 % of the agreed price reductions to the Municipality, whereas the price reduction was borne by a public private partnership in which the Municipality bore 50 % of the risk. The Commission also disregarded earlier price reductions agreed within that partnership, without giving reasons for doing so. Furthermore, the Commission incorrectly applied the private investor principle in the contested decision by assessing the Municipality’s conduct by reference to the — legally not practicable and in any event financially exceedingly unfavourable — hypothetical conduct of a notional private investor.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 123/22

Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Hanwha SolarOne and Others v Parliament and Others

(Case T-136/13)

2013/C 123/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Hanwha SolarOne (Qidong) Co. Ltd (Qidong, China); Hanwha SolarOne Technology Co. Ltd (Lianyungang, China); Hanwha SolarOne Solar Technology (Shanghai) Co. Ltd (Shanghai, China); et Hanwha Solar Electric Power Engineering Co. Ltd (Qidong) (represented by: F. Graafsma, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, European Commission and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 of the European parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2012 L 344/1), insofar as it was applied to the applicants;

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 3 January 2013 by which it refused to consider the applicants’ market economy treatment (MET) claims; and

— Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law.

The applicants request the annulment of Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012 insofar as it applies to the applicants and applicants’ MET claims submitted to the European Commission, as required under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in the People’s Republic of China (Notice of Initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 6 September 2012, OJ C 269/5). The applicants also request the annulment of the decision of 3 January 2013 in which the Commission refused to consider the applicants’ MET claims submitted in the above-mentioned investigation.

The applicants submit that Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 decision, and the 3 January decision stating that the Commission would not consider the applicants’ MET claims, frustrate the legitimate expectations of the applicants and are applied retroactively to the detriment of the applicants without valid justifications. As a result, Regulation (EU) No 1168/2012, as applied by the Commission to the applicants in the 3 January 2013 Decision, and the 3 January 2013 Decision, manifestly violate the basic principles of legal certainty and good faith.