do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-497/21: Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO
Date: 2021-08-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equal treatment, lawyer, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, residence, third country, trade-mark law








C_2021412EN.01002501.xml










11.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/25






Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Girardi v EUIPO
(Case T-497/21)
(2021/C 412/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giovanna Paola Girardi (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the notification issued on 14 June 2021 by the Operations Department in the procedure 50057C and in all other files where the applicant/right holder has its registered address outside the European Union, by which the Applicant cannot represent clients whose registered domicile is outside of the European Union;










—


declare the change of practice introduced in the EUIPO’s Guidelines in respect of the professional representation of Spanish lawyers before the EUIPO (Annex 1, Section 5, Part A) illegal;










—


order the European Union Intellectual Property Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.





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 the infringement of the Treaties, as the EUIPO has violated the principles of legal certainty, of legitimate expectations, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by notifying to the applicant an irregularity in the power to act as a representative before the EUIPO on the grounds that in Spain, ‘abogados’ can only represent clients whose permanent place of residence is in the European Union and clients whose permanent residence is outside the European Union must be represented by a professional representative holding the title ‘Agente Oficial de la Propiedad Industrial’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 120 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the lack of competence of the EUIPO to deprive Spanish lawyers of a right that exists since 1996 to fully and unconditionally practice before the EUIPO.






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (EC) (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
Case T-499/21: Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2021-08-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Portugal, State aid, airline, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, indemnification, right of establishment








C_2021391EN.01002701.xml










27.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 391/27






Action brought on 14 August 2021 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-499/21)
(2021/C 391/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, S. Rating and I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 23 April 2021 on State aid SA.62304 (2021/N) — Portugal — COVID-19: Damage compensation to TAP Portugal; (1) and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 107(2)(b) TFEU and committed a manifest error of assessment in its review of the proportionality of the aid to the damage caused by the COVID-19 crisis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of European law that have underpinned the liberalisation of air transport in the EU since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, the free provision of services — applied to air transport through Regulation 1008/2008 (2) — and free establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to initiate a formal investigation procedure despite serious difficulties and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant violated its duty to state reasons.






(1)  OJ 2021 C 240, p. 33.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3–20).