ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 (the ‘Decision’) and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 (the ‘Regulation’) (together the ‘Contested Measures’). Article 29 of the Treaty on the European Union is not a proper legal base for the Decision because the complaint made against the applicant did not identify him as an individual having undermined democracy in Ukraine or deprived the Ukrainian people of the benefits of the sustainable development of their country (within the meaning of article 23 TEU and the general provisions in article 21(2) TEU). As the Decision was invalid, the Council could not rely on article 215(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to enact the Regulation.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/35

Action brought on 20 July 2015 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v OHIM — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)

(Case T-400/15)

(2015/C 320/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: University College London (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CITRUS SATURDAY’ — Application for registration No 11 789 195

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 2109/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— consider the appeal admissible;

— declare null and void the contested decision;

— remit the case to the Opposition Division of the Office for further prosecution.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of the Community trade mark regulations;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/44

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Satkirit Holdings v OHIM — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvo)

(Case T-449/15)

(2015/C 320/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, QC)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘luvo’ — Application for registration No 11 244 324

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 877/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— dismiss the AMS’s Opposition;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Plea in law
3.

Infringement of Articles 5(3) and (4) of the Treaty and the legal rules governing its application, infringement of the principle of subsidiarity and infringement of the principle of proportionality. According to the applicants: — The EU decision is unlawful with specific reference to Article 6, entitled ‘Eradication measures’. The provision is incongruous and disproportionate since it applies to healthy plants or only to plants suspected of infection within a hundred metre radius of the site of the infected plant. That restriction makes no sense from a scientific point of view and, in particular, is disproportionate to the intended objective. — The EU decision is also unlawful with specific reference to Article 9, entitled ‘Movement of specified plants within the Union’, since it imposes an indiscriminate and unjustified ban on movement irrespective of the plant’s health status. This is all the more serious in view of the fact that the ban in question applies both outside the demarcated area and inside it. — The contested decision infringes the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. — The EU decision is also unlawful with specific reference to Article 9(2)(d)(f) and (h) since, by way of derogation from paragraph 1, it requires a 200 m buffer zone around the site where the plants are grown and lays down a series of requirements for that zone. That derogation is clearly impracticable since the buffer zone around the growing site may be outside the control of nurseries, in all cases where that zone forms part of the property of third parties.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 328/18

Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SUMOST-02)

(Case T-428/15)

(2015/C 328/18)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

Applicant: Applicant

Community plant variety right at issue:‘SUMOST-02’ — Application for registration No 2001/1759

Procedure before the CPVO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 24 February 2015 in Case A007/2009

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order the CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 48(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/39

Action brought on 19 August 2015 — KZ and Others v Commission

(Case T-480/15)

(2015/C 337/44)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: KZ (Poland), LA (Poland), LB (Austria), LC (Austria) (represented by: S. Dudzik, legal adviser, and J. Budzik, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul European Commission Decision C(2015) 4284 final of 19 June 2015 in Case AT.39864 — BASF, rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 772/2004 (1);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants put forward two pleas in law.

1. First plea in law: infringement of the principle of effective legal protection and of the right to an effective judicial remedy — By rejecting the applicants’ complaint on the basis of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 in a situation resulting in a breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, to the detriment of the applicants — even though the competent national body for the protection of competition was unable to institute proceedings on the ground that the period provided for under national law for instituting proceedings relating to a breach of competition law had expired, and the applicants also did not have the possibility effectively to seek compensation by bringing an action before a national court — the Commission infringed the applicants’ rights to effective legal protection and to an effective judicial remedy.

2. Second plea in law: breach of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 773/2004 and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) — By proceeding on the assumption that the interest of the European Union does not justify the bringing of proceedings on the basis of the applicants’ complaint, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment; — By rejecting the applicants’ complaint and refusing to bring proceedings on the basis of the unfounded assumption that the conditions governing the finding of a breach of Article 101 TFEU set out in the judgment of the Court of 17 July 1998 in Case T-111/96 ITT Promedia v. Commission are not applicable in the case of abuse of criminal or administrative procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
—

Order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 2 2 27 000 in respect of material harm and the sum of EUR 6 00 000 in respect of non-material harm;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/42

Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHIM — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SMART)

(Case T-488/15)

(2015/C 337/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SMART’ — Application for Registration No 8 431 091

Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2015 in Case R 1734/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law
2.

Second plea in law: infringement of Article 101 TFEU, the principle of legal certainty, the principle that penalties must be specific to the offender and the principle of presumption of innocence referred to in Articles 6(2) and 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the Convention’) and Articles 48 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the fundamental right of property referred to in Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, Article 14 of the Convention and Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter, as well as infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment, in so far as the Commission erred in considering Italmobiliare jointly and severally responsible as the parent company for the conduct of companies under its control.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 371/44

Appeal brought on 16 September 2015 by Fernando De Esteban Alonso against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 in Case F-35/15, De Esteban Alonso v Commission

(Case T-557/15 P)

(2015/C 371/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside order F-35/15 of 15 July 2015, by which the President of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal dismissed his application;

— set aside the decision of the Appointing Authority of 21 November 2014, received on 3 December 2014, rejecting Complaint No R/865/14 brought by the appellant on 5 August 2014;

— order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 17 242,51, adjusted to the sum of EUR 24 242,51 on the date of the appeal;

— order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 3 000 in respect of the non-recoverable costs, to be adjusted if necessary, and to pay all the costs.

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 a denial of justice, in that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.

2. Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of defence, in that the CST gave its decision by means of an order, without permitting a fresh exchange of pleadings or a public hearing.
—

The decision of 26 June 2015 (the ‘contested review decision’) also served as the letter of notification for the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 (the ‘contested acts’), but no statement of reasons is given in the letter for the adoption of the contested acts. Besides, the statement of reasons provided by the Council does not meet the standard defined by the case-law.
—

annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1066 of 2 July 2015 amending Decision 2013/183/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 25) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1062 of 2 July 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (OJ L 174, p. 16) in so far as those measures purport to include them in Annex V;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/55

Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (Representation of a black square with four white stripes)

(Case T-567/15)

(2015/C 381/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark (representation of a black square with four white stripes) — Application for registration No 11 390 853

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 4 May 2015 in Case R 2368/2014-5;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 1 July 2015 in opposition No B2182320;

— reject the opposed mark in respect of class 25;

— order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the opponent.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009;
1.

First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a misapplication of Article 4(3) first subparagraph of 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 L 145, p. 43). The applicant puts forward that the Parliament committed an error in law and misapplied Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 in that: — access to the requested documents, which are part of the legislative process, does not specifically, effectively and in a non-hypothetical manner undermine the legislative decision-making process; — the Parliament ignores that, notably after the Lisbon Treaty, legislative preparatory documents are subject to the principle of widest possible access; — if Article 4(3) would still be applicable to legislative preparatory works after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Parliament has committed an error in law and misapplied the overriding public interest test.
The applicant states, that in its view, the Commission, in taking the decision, disregarded the fact that in the case of taxes to be determined on the basis of tax returns the Hungarian authorities are unable to prevent the grant of the aid, and that, further, the Commission’s decision was contradictory as regards the subject-matter of the suspension. Consequently, it did not define clear rules of conduct, whilst it can none the less require the Hungarian authorities to implement the decision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/33

Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (Representation of a peace symbol)

(Case T-583/15)

(2015/C 414/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a peace symbol) — Application for registration No 11 363 611

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2015 in Case R 2788/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 11 December 2013 in Case R 1285/2013-1;

— order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Articles 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/42

Action brought on 8 October 2015 — Nara tekstil sanayi ve ticaret v OHIM — NBC Fourth Realty (NaraMaxx)

(Case T-586/15)

(2015/C 406/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Osmangazi-Bursa, Turkey) (represented by: M. López Camba, L. Monzón de la Flor, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (North Las Vegas, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NaraMaxx’ — Application for registration No 11 142 461.

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2015 in Case R 1073/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision, to the extent that it maintains the upholding of opposition B 2122938;

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi;

— order NBC Fourth Realty Corp. to pay the costs incurred by Nara Tekstil Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/45

Action brought on 6 November 2015 — European Food and Others/Commission

(Case T-624/15)

(2016/C 016/54)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: European Food SA (Drăgăneşti, Romania), Starmill Srl (Drăgăneşti), Multipack Srl (Drăgăneşti), Scandic Distilleries SA (Bihor, Romania) (represented by: K. Struckmann, lawyer, G. Forwood, Barrister, and A. Kadri, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1470 of 30 March 2015 on State aid SA.38517 (2014/C) (ex 2014/NN) implemented by Romania [Arbitral award Micula v Romania of 11 December 2013 (notified under document C(2015) 2112)] (OJ 2015 L 232, p. 43);

— alternatively, annul the contested decision insofar as it (a) concerns each of the applicants, (b) prevents Romania from complying with the award, (c) orders Romania to recover any incompatible aid, (d) orders that the applicants shall be jointly liable to repay aid received by any of the entities identified in Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in failing to properly apply Article 351 TFEU and general principles of law to the present case.

2. Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question conferred an advantage on the applicants, specifically in incorrectly assessing the time at which the alleged advantage was granted, or alternatively in finding that the payment of damages constitutes an advantage.

3. Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision wrongly found that the measure in question was imputable to the Romanian State.

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly assessed the compatibility of the alleged aid measure.

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly identified the beneficiaries of the alleged aid, and failed to state reasons for its conclusion, specifically in identifying the natural or legal persons comprising the alleged beneficiary undertaking.

6. Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision erred in law and exceeded its competence in ordering recovery of the alleged aid.

7. Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

8. Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to observe essential procedural requirements, specifically the right to be heard, Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 6(1) of Regulation 659/1999 (1).

(1) Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ L 83, p. 1 (as amended).
Fifth plea in law: Compatibility of the aid with the common market

The applicant claims that, if the cap on the EEG-surcharge were to be classified as aid, it would be compatible with the common market. The cap does not distort competition; rather, a competitive disadvantage for the users concerned is compensated for by this means.
—

The applicant claims in that respect that one of the documents that the defendant sent to the applicant at the beginning of the procedure expressly states that if the examples submitted did not fulfil the technical requirements, the bidder would be permitted to present new examples in order to fully meet those requirements. At no point was the applicant advised that it had not fulfilled the requirements, with the result that it never had the opportunity to present other examples. Nonetheless, the reasons that the defendant has given to disqualify JEMA from the tender procedure is that its examples did not fulfil the requirements.
1.

First plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of their obligations under the Grant Agreement. As a result, the applicant submits that they wrongfully terminated the Grant Agreement and ordered recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/74

Action brought on 4 December 2015 — Drugsrus v EMA

(Case T-717/15)

(2016/C 038/100)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Drugsrus Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Howe and S. Ford, Barristers, and R. Sanghvi, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision contained in the EMA’s email dated 8 October 2015, that Drugsrus is not permitted to rebrand as Eklira Genuair, a product imported as Bretaris Genuair; and

— order EMA to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

The applicant contends that the EMA has erred in law in concluding that it is impermissible to rebrand centrally authorised medicinal products. It submits that under the rules of the TFUE on the free movement of goods, a parallel importer is permitted to repackage and/or rebrand a product for parallel distribution provided that such repackaging or rebranding is objectively necessary in order that the imported product can gain effective access to the market of the importing Member State.