do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-552/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Maña and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017369EN.01002902.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/29





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Maña and Others v SRB
(Case T-552/17)
(2017/C 369/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Maña, S.L. (Teo, Spain) and 113 other applicants (represented by: P. Rúa Sobrino, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Take note of the annulment proceedings against the ‘Decision of the Single Resolution Board made at the Executive Session on 7 June 2017 relating to the resolution plan of Banco Popular Español, S.A., legal person identification No 80H66LPTVDLM0P28XF25, addressed to the FROB (SRB/EES/2017/08)’;










—


Annul the contested Decision;










—


Declare Articles 18 and 29 of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 illegal and inapplicable;










—


Order the Single Resolution Board to pay the costs.





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.
Case T-553/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Cambra Abaurrea v Parliament and Others
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017402EN.01003902.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/39





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Cambra Abaurrea v Parliament and Others
(Case T-553/17)
(2017/C 402/53)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Agustín Cambra Abaurrea (Marcilla, Spain) (represented by: A. Mayayo Martínez, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Take note of the lodging in due form and within the prescribed period of an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union against the implementation of the decision of the Single Resolution Board, an implementing decision which has caused significant harm to the assets of the former and legitimate shareholders and debt holders of the Banco Popular, and deliver a judgment in due course annulling that decision;










—


In the alternative, declare with immediate effect the suspension of the implementation carried out by the Single Resolution Board and the FROB (Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring), given that its validity and entry into force results in harm to the assets of the Banco Popular’s shareholders, who have lost that status, which it is difficult or impossible to remedy.





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.
Case T-563/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017374EN.01003901.xml










6.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/39





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Gayalex Proyectos v SRB
(Case T-563/17)
(2017/C 374/58)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gayalex Proyectos, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Betancor Álamo and F. Cabrera Molina, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Take note of the present action and the supporting documents, declare it admissible and consider as lodged this application for annulment of Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 adopting the resolution scheme for the institution Banco Popular Español, S.A, and annul that decision.





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.
Case T-548/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017347EN.01004101.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/41





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — VF International v EUIPO — Virmani (ANOKHI)
(Case T-548/17)
(2017/C 347/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: VF International Sagl (Stabio, Switzerland) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ken Virmani (Munich, Germany)

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 element ‘ANOKHI’ — Application for registration No 13 025 382

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 May 2017 in Case R 2307/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Articles 85 Regulation No 207/2009 and 94 of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case T-560/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: derogation from EU law, environmental protection, industrial pollution, mercury, metal pollution, ownership, principle of proportionality








C_2017369EN.01003001.xml










30.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 369/30





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — Fortischem v Parliament and Council
(Case T-560/17)
(2017/C 369/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fortischem a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented by: C. Arhold, P. Hodál and M. Staroň, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul letter (d) in Annex III, Part I, to Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (1); and










—


award the applicant the costs of the action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of legitimate expectations by depriving the mercury cell production site operators of their possibility to receive an extension for complying with the best available techniques if the conditions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) are met.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it infringes the principle of proportionality by (i) setting a firm phase-out deadline for mercury cell production well ahead of the deadline ensuing from the applicable international regulation on mercury, without at least providing the possibility of granting extensions/exemptions in specific cases, (ii) promoting legislation which is unable to provide any significant environmental benefits to a wider public but at the same time causing significant disadvantages to the business operators, and (iii) ignoring existing legislation already providing clear rules for phase-out and extensions/exemptions and failing to provide hardship clauses on its own.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested provision must be annulled because it will cause losses for the applicant’s business operations tantamount to a breach of the fundamental right to property under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, being disproportionate to the objectives of the contested provision and capable of being achieved by less restrictive measures.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on mercury, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1102/2008 (OJ 2017, L 137, p. 1)
Case T-554/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017382EN.01004701.xml










13.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/47





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — González Calvet v SRB
(Case T-554/17)
(2017/C 382/58)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Ramón González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) and Joan González Calvet (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. Molina Bosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should take note that an action against Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board has been lodged and, following the completion of the relevant legal procedures, uphold the present action and annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board, thereby rendering the implementation of the decision and the actions taken as a result thereof devoid of effects. If the Court does not annul that decision, the applicants claim that they are entitled to compensation for the loss of their shares.

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.
Commission Decision of 16 August 2017 amending Decision 2009/427/EC establishing the expert group for technical advice on organic production
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: animal product, fact-finding mission, food inspection, food processing, organic farming








C_2017273EN.01000301.xml










18.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/3





COMMISSION DECISION
of 16 August 2017
amending Decision 2009/427/EC establishing the expert group for technical advice on organic production
(2017/C 273/03)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Whereas:






(1)


By Decision 2009/427/EC (1) the Commission has set up the expert group for technical advice on organic production (‘the group’).










(2)


Article 4(5) of Decision 2009/427/EC lays down that the members of the group are appointed for a 3-year renewable term of office. Experience with the group so far has shown that a period of 3 years is too short to enable the group to fully exert its tasks. Technical advice on organic production has an important role to play in the light of the evolution of the organic sector. The authorisation procedure, including technical advice for the use of agricultural practices and the application of substances, will need to be adapted to forthcoming legislative developments relating to the organic production. It is also necessary to ensure continuity in relation to the work of the group. Therefore, the term of mandate of the group set out in Decision 2009/427/EC should be extended to a 4-year term.










(3)


Decision 2009/427/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
In Article 4 of Decision 2009/427/EC, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

‘5.   Members of the group are appointed for a 4-year renewable term of office and may not serve for more than three consecutive mandates. They shall remain in office until such time as they are replaced in accordance with paragraph 6 or their term of office ends.’

Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 16 August 2017.


For the Commission

Phil HOGAN

Member of the Commission





(1)  Commission Decision 2009/427/EC of 3 June 2009 establishing the expert group for technical advice on organic production (OJ L 139, 5.6.2009, p. 29).
Case T-555/17: Action brought on 16 August 2017 — TW and Others v SRB
Date: 2017-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017424EN.01003901.xml










11.12.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 424/39





Action brought on 16 August 2017 — TW and Others v SRB
(Case T-555/17)
(2017/C 424/57)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: TW, TY, UA and UB (represented by: L. Chen Chen, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Take note of the lodging of the present action for annulment of the Single Resolution Board’s decision to write down Banco Popular Español S.A.’s share capital to EUR 0 and to sell it subsequently to Banco de Santander S.A. for EUR 1, and after having examined all the documents officially available and assessed the grounds set out therein, declare that the decision taken by the Board in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 June 2017 is invalid or annulled.





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.