do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-222/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission
Date: 2017-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, inter-company agreement, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2017195EN.01003402.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/34





Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Recylex a.o. v Commission
(Case T-222/17)
(2017/C 195/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Recylex SA (Paris, France), Fonderie et Manufacture de Métaux (Anderlecht, Belgium), Harz-Metall GmbH (Goslar, Germany) (represented by: M. Wellinger, S. Reinart and K. Bongs, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


reduce the amount of the fine imposed upon them in the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2017 (C(2017) 900 final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFUE;










—


grant the applicants payment terms, and










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice (1) as regards the duration of the infringement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not applying to the applicants point 26 (final paragraph) of the Leniency Notice as regards the infringement concerning France.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying a specific increase of 10 % in the calculation of the fine based on point 37 of the Fining Guidelines (2).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in not granting the applicants a reduction of 50 % in the fine pursuant to the first hyphen of point 26 of the Leniency Notice.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision violates the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as well as the principle that the fine must be specific to the offender.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Court is requested to use its unlimited jurisdiction to grant the applicant payment terms for any part of the fine still due.






(1)  Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2006, C 298, p. 17), as last amended by the Communication from the Commission on Amendments to the Commission Notice on Immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2015, C 256, p. 1).

(2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).
Case T-223/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)
Date: 2017-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, chemical product, distributor, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2017202EN.01002101.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/21





Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)
(Case T-223/17)
(2017/C 202/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS’ — European Union trade mark No 3 383 015

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2522/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present action in its entirety;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of fundamental principles and basic procedural requirements, such as the burden of proof, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, the rights of defence or to be heard, and the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/700 of 18 April 2017 amending for the 266th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations
Date: 2017-04-18
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism, trade restriction








L_2017103EN.01002201.xml










19.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 103/22








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/700
of 18 April 2017
         
amending for the 266th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (1), and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and Article 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 8 April 2017, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 18 April 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Acting Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
In Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002, the following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:


            ‘Khadafi Abubakar Janjalani (alias (a) Khadafy Janjalani, (b) Khaddafy Abubakar Janjalani, (c) Abu Muktar). Date of birth: 3.3.1975. Place of birth: Isabela, Basilan, the Philippines. Nationality: Filipino. Other information: Reportedly deceased in 2006. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a(4)(b): 22.12.2004.’
Case T-230/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
Date: 2017-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, traineeship








C_2017178EN.01003201.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/32





Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Rstudio v EUIPO — Embarcadero Technologies (RSTUDIO)
(Case T-230/17)
(2017/C 178/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Rstudio, Inc. (Boston, Massachusetts, United States) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and G. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘RSTUDIO’ –International registration designating the European Union No 999 644

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 493/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay to the applicant the costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below; in the alternative, if the potential intervener actually intervenes, order EUIPO and the intervener to be jointly and severally liable for the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal and the costs below.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the goods for which proof of use had been established and, accordingly, failed to conduct the correct comparison of goods;










—


The Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the similarity of the relevant goods and the similarity of the relevant marks and, accordingly, wrongly assessed the existence of the likelihood of confusion.