ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement by the selection board of the competition notice insofar as it arbitrarily restricted its assessment of the applicant’s professional experience by, in connection with three questions, looking only at the duration of that experience.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/39

Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Gugler v EUIPO — Gugler France (GUGLER)

(Case T-238/17)

(2017/C 195/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gugler France (Besançon, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘GUGLER’ — EU trade mark No 3 324 902

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2017 in Case R 1008/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it regards the cancellation of the EU trade mark registration No 3 324 902 and the obligation to bear the cancellation applicant’s costs of EUR 550;

— order EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs in relation to the present proceedings.

Plea(s) in law

— Violation of the principle of sound administration;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/36

Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)

(Case T-278/17)

(2017/C 213/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN’ — Application for registration No 13 374 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1570/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of February 23, 2017 in case R 1570/2016-2 and reject the opposition;

— order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11(1)(a) and (d)(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1) and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups (OJ 2003 L 203, p. 18), in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 of 26 September 2007 laying down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, amending Directives 2001/112/EC and 2001/113/EC and Regulations (EEC) No 827/68, (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96, (EC) No 2826/2000, (EC) No 1782/2003 and (EC) No 318/2006 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 (OJ 2007 L 273, p. 1) and Article 2(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1). — The Kingdom of Spain submits that the Commission infringed Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation 2200/96, as regards the producer organisation Tilla Huelva, in considering that the three members of that organisation did not meet the ‘producer’ condition and that, consequently, the provisions of Article 11 of Regulation 2200/96 relating to the requirements of democratic scrutiny had not been observed, since that organisation was at all times composed of producers, with the result that the rules of democratic scrutiny laid down in Article 11(1)(d)(3) of Regulation 2200/96 and Article 14 of Commission Regulation 1432/2003, in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Regulation 1782/2003 were fulfilled.
—

annul the decision of the European Commission of 2 February 2017 (SA.26763 — (2014/C) –), concerning the aid scheme implemented by France in favour of bus undertakings in the Île-de-France region, in so far as it classified that scheme as State aid;
1.

First plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of protection of whistle-blowers as defined by Articles 22 (a), Article 22 (b) of the Staff Regulations, Article 6(1) of the Internal Rules.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/35

Action brought on 5 May 2017 — Webgarden v EUIPO (Dating Bracelet)

(Case T-272/17)

(2017/C 231/43)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: Webgarden Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Jambrik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Design at issue: European Union design ‘Dating Bracelet’ — Application for registration No 14450019

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2017 in Case R 658/2016-5

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 4 of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

— Infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 231/32

Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

(Case T-269/17)

(2017/C 231/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 433 485,93 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 325954 ‘ESICAPIA-Experimental Subsonic Investigation of a Complete Aircraft Propulsion system Installation and Architecture power plant optimization’, plus the amount of EUR 2 244,63 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

— order the defendant to pay EUR 41,57 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.

The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project ESICAPIA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.

Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 433 485,93 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.

The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.

Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the general principle of freedom of expression, read in conjunction with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 52 of the Charter, with the particular circumstance that the remarks referred to in the contested decisions were made by a Member of the European Parliament in the exercise of his functions and inside the premises of the European Union institutions, and infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, of Article 41 of the Charter, of the principle that reasons must be stated for acts of the EU institutions, of Article 296 TFEU, a manifest error of assessment and an act ultra vires.
1.

First plea in law, a plea of illegality raised against the decision of 13 July 2016, since it is based on the application of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and/or birth, the principle of equal treatment, the right to education, the protection of children’s interests, the principle of proportionality and of legitimacy of any derogation from the rights enshrined in the Charter.
3.

Third plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities including the violation of the internal procedural rules set out in Decision 82, the breach of the rights of defence, the right to be heard, the principle of good administration and the duty of care. — The defendant not only failed to follow the procedure provided for by Decision 82 but also failed to hear the applicant’s views effectively in any other way. It thus failed, before taking the decision of 26 August 2016, to obtain relevant information from the applicant as to his interests and did not allow the applicant to properly prepare his defence.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/40

Action brought on 23 June 2017 — Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik v EUIPO (Лидер)

(Case T-386/17)

(2017/C 256/46)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Lackmann Fleisch- und Feinkostfabrik GmbH (Bühl, Germany) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO

Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Лидер’ — Application No 15 466 791

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2017 in Case R 2066/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
1.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of the provisions of the Treaties of the European Union relating to the competence of the Union. — The proposed citizens’ initiative is exclusively aimed at improving the protection of the rights of persons belonging to national and linguistic minorities, and has no direct link with cultural diversity for the purposes of Article 3 TEU and Article 167 TFEU.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 256/39

Action brought on 8 June 2017 — La Zaragozana v EUIPO — Heineken Italia (CERVISIA)

(Case T-378/17)

(2017/C 256/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heineken Italia SpA (Pollein, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERVISIA’ — Application for registration No 13 395 397

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 in Case R 1241/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 283/54

Action brought on 12 July 2017 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)

(Case T-444/17)

(2017/C 283/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant

Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘life coins’ — Application for registration No 12 541 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1569/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/54

Action brought on 3 July 2017 — Cyprus v EUIPO — Papouis Dairies (fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese)

(Case T-417/17)

(2017/C 277/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Papouis Dairies LTD (Nicosia, Cyprus)

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: EU figurative mark in colour containing the word elements ‘fino Cyprus Halloumi Cheese’ — Application for registration No 11 180 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2017 in Case R 2650/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 309/34

Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

(Case T-438/17)

(2017/C 309/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, 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 word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1289/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/34

Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Oy Karl Fazer v EUIPO — Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (MIGNON)

(Case T-437/17)

(2017/C 300/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Oy Karl Fazer Ab (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (Halle, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MIGNON’ — Application for registration No 10 995 892

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2017 in Case R 1859/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— allow the trademark to be registered for all applied goods.

Plea in law
—

annul the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the Director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS), acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, decided to terminate the applicant’s employment contract of indefinite duration with effect from 19 June 2017 (in the version of that decision to terminate most recently received through the rejection of the applicant’s complaint on 19 April 2017);
—

declare that EU law has been infringed by the SRB in Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopted at the executive session of 7 June 2017 and in which it adopted the resolution scheme regarding the financial institution Banco Popular Español, S.A.;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 330/12

Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)

(Case T-472/17)

(2017/C 330/15)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

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: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Camele’on’ — Application for registration No 13 317 714

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 570/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;

— order in-edit S.à.r.l. to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/37

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Inverni and Others v Commission and SRB

(Case T-505/17)

(2017/C 347/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Inverni, SL (Madrid, Spain), Inverindesa, SL (Madrid) and Isaac Ignacio Fernández Fernández (Oviedo, Spain) (represented by: B. Gutiérrez de la Roza Pérez, P. Rubio Escobar, R. Ruiz de la Torre Esporrín and B. Fernández García, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul:

— Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board taken at its executive session of 7 June 2017 adopting the resolution scheme regarding the institution Banco Popular Español S.A.;

— Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 endorsing the resolution scheme for Banco Popular Español.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the EDPS failed to reply to the complaint submitted to it by the applicant. By rejecting the complaint on the ground that it constituted a request for a review and by failing to reply to the arguments raised by the applicant in support of his request for anonymisation, the contested decision breaches Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, which invests the EDPS with the function of examining complaints and informing the data subject of the outcome of its examination, and Articles 33 and 34(1) of Decision 2013/504/EU of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 17 December 2012 on the adoption of Rules of Procedure, adopted pursuant to Article 46(a) of Regulation No 45/2001, under which the EDPS is required to deal with complaints and to inform the claimant of the outcome of a complaint and the action taken. According to the applicant, the EDPS did not deal with the complaint in so far as it incorrectly classified it as a request for a review. The contested decision also infringes Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which imposes on EU institutions and bodies a general obligation to give reasons.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 357/21

Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Folch Torrela and Others v SRB

(Case T-524/17)

(2017/C 357/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicants: Ángel Folch Torrela (Terrassa, Spain) and 42 other applicants (represented by: V. Clavell Hernández, C. de Santiago Álvarez y J. Redondo Martín, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

— declare that, by adopting in its executive session of 7 June 2017 Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 establishing the resolution scheme in respect of the financial institution Banco Popular Español S.A., the Single Resolution Board (‘the SRB’) infringed EU law;

— consequently, annul that measure, and any subsequent implementing measures too that the SRB may have adopted, with effect ex tunc.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía and Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board, T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán el Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board, T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board, T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board, T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board, and T-498/17, Pablo Álvarez de Linera Granda v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts place an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the fundamental rights of the applicant, in particular on his right to property, enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to respect for his reputation, under Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, to a presumption of innocence, enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and his freedom of movement, guaranteed in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.