do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-703/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Liberbank v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01004701.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/47





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Liberbank v Commission
(Case T-703/13)
2014/C 52/90
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Liberbank, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-702/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Unicaja Banco v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01004602.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/46





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Unicaja Banco v Commission
(Case T-702/13)
2014/C 52/89
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Unicaja Banco, SA (Malaga, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-720/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plant health product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014071EN.01002402.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/24






Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)
(Case T-720/13)
(2014/C 71/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Gat Microencapsulation AG (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision insofar appeal submitted by the appellant/applicant was rejected;










—


Order OHIM and the interveners to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gat Microencapsulation AG

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KARIS’, for a list of goods and services in Classes 1, 5 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BASF SE

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; international trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; Hungarian, Italian and Benelux trade mark ‘AKRIS’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-713/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001701.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/17





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — 9Flats v OHIM — Tibesoca (9flats.com)
(Case T-713/13)
2014/C 61/30
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: 9Flats GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Stoffregen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tibesoca, SL (Valencia, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 October 2013 in Case R 1671/2012-2;










—


annul the decision of OHIM’s Opposition Division of 13 July 2012 in opposition proceedings No B 1 898 686;










—


reject the opposition to registration of the mark ‘9flats.com’ — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: 9Flats GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘9flats.com’ for services in Classes 36, 38, 39 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 832 635

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tibesoca, SL

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘40 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, Spanish figurative mark which includes the number and word elements ‘11 flats apartments’ for services in Class 43, and Spanish figurative mark which includes the numbers and the word element ‘50 flats’ for services in Class 43

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-698/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, rights of civil servants








C_2014052EN.01004403.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/44





Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-127/12 Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-698/13 P)
2014/C 52/85
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the General Court should:






—


set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his appeal, the appellant claims that the order under appeal is manifestly unfair, unjust and unlawful by virtue of a total failure to provide reasons and a failure to make preliminary inquiries, as well as on the grounds of ostensibly self-evident, tautologous and arbitrary reasoning, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, and error of law.
Case T-696/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, clearing agreement, competitiveness, economic support, framework agreement, general budget (EU), infringement of EU law, innovation, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2014052EN.01004402.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/44





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Meta Group v European Commission
(Case T-696/13)
2014/C 52/84
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Meta Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Bartolini, V. Colcelli and A. Formica, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the reductions made by the European Commission on the subsidies granted to META S.r.l are unlawful;










—


And, consequently, order the Commission to pay the applicant the additional amount of EUR 129 153,11, together with default interest;










—


Order the administration to compensate the applicant for the consequential loss suffered by it.





Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against the decisions of the Commission which reduced the grant initially provided for the projects ‘Bcreative’, ‘Take-It-Up’ and ‘Ecolink +’, which grant agreements were concluded between the applicant and the defendant in the context of the ‘Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007 — 2013)’.
Several decisions concerning those projects were also contested in Cases T — 471/12, T — 34/13 and T — 35/13, Meta Group v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments set out are identical to those raised in those cases.
Case C-687/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, floor coverings, import (EU), originating product








C_2014078EN.01000303.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
(Case C-687/13)
2014/C 78/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

Question referred

Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1.
Case T-704/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Banco de Sabadell and Banco Gallego v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01004702.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/47





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Banco de Sabadell and Banco Gallego v Commission
(Case T-704/13)
2014/C 52/91
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Banco de Sabadell, SA (Sabadell, Spain) and Banco Gallego, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-701/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Asociación Española de Banca v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01004601.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/46





Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Asociación Española de Banca v Commission
(Case T-701/13)
2014/C 52/88
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Asociación Española de Banca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State Aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-699/13 P: Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2013-12-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, rights of civil servants








C_2014052EN.01004501.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/45





Appeal brought on 30 December 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 17 October 2013 in Case F-145/12 Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-699/13 P)
2014/C 52/86
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the General Court should:






—


set aside in its entirety the order under appeal;










—


refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-698/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.