ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/44

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council

(Case T-161/14)

2014/C 142/57

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Yingli Energy (China) Co. Ltd (Baoding, China); Baoding Tianwei Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Hainan Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Haikou, China); Hengshui Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Hengshui, China); Tianjin Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Tianjin, China); Lixian Yingli New Energy Resources Co. Ltd (Baoding); Baoding Jiasheng Photovoltaic Technology Co. Ltd (Baoding); Beijing Tianneng Yingli New Energy Resources Technology Co. Ltd (Beijing, China); Yingli Energy (Beijing) Co. Ltd (Beijing); Yingli Green Energy Europe (Düsseldorf, Germany); Yingli Green Energy South East Europe GmbH (Grünwald, Germany); Yingli Green Energy France SAS (Lyon, France); Yingli Green Energy Spain, SL (La Moraleja, Spain); Yingli Green Energy Italia Srl (Rome, Italy); and Yingli Green Energy International AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66), as far as it applies to the applicants;

— Order the defendants to pay the costs.

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 by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 10(12) and 10(13) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing countervailing measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-subsidy investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 2(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 135/58

Action brought on 28 February 2014 — Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council

(Case T-162/14)

2014/C 135/77

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Canadian Solar Emea GmbH (Munich, Germany); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Declare the action admissible;

— Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

2. Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/33

Action brought on 24 March 2014 — Swedish Match North Europe v OHIM — Skruf Snus (Oral snuff packages)

(Case T-196/14)

2014/C 151/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Swedish Match North Europe AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: H. Wistam and L. Holm, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Skruf Snus AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 December 2013 given in Case R 1803/2012-3;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for the product ‘oral snuff packages’ — registered under No 1265805-0010

Proprietor of the Community design: The other party to the proceeding

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design lacked an individual character

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the application for a declaration of invalidity of the contested RCD

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and dismissed the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 6 CDR.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 159/31

Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Pavlides v Commission and ECB

(Case T-150/14)

2014/C 159/42

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Constantinos Pavlides (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 184/36

Action brought on 11 April 2014 — iNET24 Holding v OHIM (IDIRECT24)

(Case T-225/14)

2014/C 184/58

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: iNET24 Holding AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund, B. Breitinger and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

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 Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2014 in Case R 1867/2013-5;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Designation of the European Union for the international registration of the word mark ‘IDIRECT24’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 38 and 42 — International registration No 1 145 181

Decision of the Examiner: Application refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

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

Annul, in whole or in part, the contested decision in so far as: — it classified the compensation paid for public services pursuant to Regional Law No 15 of 7 August 2012 and the capital finance approved by the general meeting of Saremar’s shareholders on 15 June 2012 as State aid; — it found those measures to be incompatible with the internal market and ordered that they be recovered;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 202/27

Appeal brought on 15 April 2014 by the European Medicines Agency against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 5 February 2014 in Case F-29/13 Drakeford v EMA

(Case T-231/14 P)

2014/C 202/34

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: David Drakeford (Dublin, Ireland)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-29/13 in so far as it annuls the decision of the EMA not to renew the respondent’s contract;

— grant the form of order sought at first instance by the appellant: to dismiss the action as entirely unfounded;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of these appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

1. First plea in law, alleging errors of law by the Civil Service Tribunal with regard to the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, in so far as it held that the words ‘any further renewal’ should be interpreted as referring to any process that leads to temporary staff, within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, at the end of their engagement for a fixed period, continuing, in that capacity, their employment relationship with their employer, even if such renewal is accompanied by grade progression or a change in the duties performed.

2. Second plea in law, alleging error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal as regards the stating of the exception to the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 194/33

Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Zehnder Group International v OHIM — Stiebel Eltron (comfotherm)

(Case T-267/14)

2014/C 194/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Zehnder Group International AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG (Holzminden, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 21 February 2014 in Case R 1318/2013-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘comfotherm’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 — Community trade mark No 8 8 59 472

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Stiebel Eltron GmbH & Co. KG

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the word mark ‘KOMFOTHERM’ for goods in Class 11

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: the contested decision does not stand up to scrutiny as regards the finding in respect of the similarity of the goods
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 212/41

Action brought on 19 May 2014 — UNIC v Commission

(Case T-338/14)

2014/C 212/53

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, lawyer, and M. Bottino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Uphold the action and, accordingly, annul the contested decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action has been brought against the European Commission’s decision of 19 March 2014 rejecting the request for initiation of a withdrawal procedure in respect of the preferential tariff arrangements granted to India, Pakistan and Ethiopia with regard to the raw hides and semi-manufactured leather goods referred to in Sections S-8a, S-8b and S-12a of [the GSP Sections, as set out in Annex V to] Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (OJ 2012 L 303, p. 1).

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

1. First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. — The applicant claims, in this regard, that the contested decision does not comply with the obligation, as interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice, to provide a clear, precise and unequivocal statement of reasons.

2. Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. — The applicant claims, in this regard, that there has been a manifest error of assessment regarding (i) whether the temporary withdrawal of preferential arrangements is a sufficient response to the raw material supply problem and (ii) the existence of preconditions for the temporary withdrawal, pursuant to Article 19(1)(d) of Regulation No 978/2012, of the general preferential arrangements granted to India, Ethiopia and Pakistan.
1.

First plea in law: Absence of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Commission wrongly assumes a use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in the context of the financing flows provided for under the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG). — The Commission wrongly concluded that the financing flows provided for under the EEG took place with the aid of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. — The EEG-surcharge is paid only by private parties. The resources collected cannot be attributed to the State. The required permanent State control and the related actual access possibility of the authorities are lacking both with regard to the EEG-surcharge itself and with regard to its reduction in favour of energy-intensive users. — In any event, the surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users does not result in a waiver of revenue which the State could normally have expected to receive. The reduction is financed solely from private resources, namely by a higher surcharge amount for every kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied to non-privileged end-consumers. The so-called special compensation regime of the EEG therefore does not affect the amount of the total revenue from the EEG-surcharge, but solely the internal distribution of charges.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/23

Action brought on 14 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi juice)

(Case T-248/14)

2014/C 235/31

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the 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 10 February 2014 given in Case R 119/2013-4;

— Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in class 32

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51 560 for the word ‘masafi’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(a), (b) and 8(5) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/25

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Bionecs/OHMI — Fidia Farmaceutici (BIONECS)

(Case T-262/14)

2014/C 235/35

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bionecs GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fidia Farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy)

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 6 February 2014 given in Case R 1179/2013-1;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BIONECS’ for goods and services in classes 5, 29 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 50 638

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘BIONECT’ for goods in class 5 registered as international trade mark under the number 7 15 915

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/30

Action brought on 6 June 2014 — Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales v Commission

(Case T-397/14)

2014/C 245/41

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Sociedad Española Inmuebles y Locales, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. García Muñoz, J.I. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-392/14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/15

Action brought on 1 April 2014 — Mederer/OHIM — Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings (Gummi Bear-Rings)

(Case T-210/14)

2014/C 245/21

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: C. Sachs and O. Ruhl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV (Breda, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2013 in case R 225/2013-5;

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs incurred during the proceedings before the OHIM and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Gummi Bear-Rings’ for goods in Class 30 — International registration No 1 051 028 designating the European Union

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cadbury Netherlands International Holdings BV

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word element ‘Gummy’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009