do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-401/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, building technique, painting, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019288EN.01005801.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/58






Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)
(Case T-401/19)
(2019/C 288/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe in yellow, orange, red, pink, purple, blue, turquoise, dark green, light green and anthracite — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 673

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1498/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-402/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, building technique, painting, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019288EN.01005901.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/59






Action brought on 27 June 2019 — Brillux v EUIPO — Synthesa Chemie (Freude an Farbe)
(Case T-402/19)
(2019/C 288/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Brillux GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synthesa Chemie GesmbH (Perg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark Freude an Farbe — International registration designating the European Union No 1 316 404

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2019 in Case R 1434/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-319/15: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources — Annulment of the act criticised by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2019295EN.01003301.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/33






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission
(Case T-319/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 295/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Deutsche Edelstahlwerke (Witten, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssenet and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.











2.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH.







(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case T-20/17: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hungary v Commission (State aid — Hungarian tax on the turnover from the broadcasting or publication of advertisements — Progressivity of tax rates — Deduction from the basis of assessment of the tax of 50 % of the losses carried forward for companies not generating a profit in 2013 — Decision characterising the measures as aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Condition relating to selectivity)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, VAT, advertising, basis of tax assessment, broadcasting, control of State aid, publishing, reimbursement of aid, tax relief, tax system








C_2019288EN.01004501.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/45






Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-20/17) (1)

(State aid - Hungarian tax on the turnover from the broadcasting or publication of advertisements - Progressivity of tax rates - Deduction from the basis of assessment of the tax of 50 % of the losses carried forward for companies not generating a profit in 2013 - Decision characterising the measures as aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)
(2019/C 288/57)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.-Z. Fehér, G. Koós and E.-Zs. Tóth, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P.-J. Loewenthal, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover (OJ 2017 L 49, p. 36).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/329 of 4 November 2016 on the measure SA.39235 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Hungary on the taxation of advertisement turnover;











2.



Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hungary, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures;











3.



Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Case T-392/19: Action brought on 27 June 2019 –Mantovani v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019270EN.01005101.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/51






Action brought on 27 June 2019 –Mantovani v Parliament
(Case T-392/19)
(2019/C 270/53)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Agostino Mantovani (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament redetermined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the legal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those raised in Case T-389/19 Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-109/15: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources — Annulment of the act criticised by the Court — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, renewable energy








C_2019295EN.01003201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/32






Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Saint-Gobain Isover G+H and Others v Commission
(Case T-109/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 295/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Stolberg, Germany), Verallia Deutschland AG, formerly Saint-Gobain Oberland AG (Bad Wurzach, Germany) and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Herzogenrath, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt et H. Janssen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.











2.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH, Verallia Deutschland AG, formerly Saint-Gobain Oberland AG, and Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG.







(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.