17.7.2023
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 252/71
— annul Article 1i and Annex VIII of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus and the involvement of Belarus in the Russian aggression against Ukraine, as amended by Council Decision 2023/421/CFSP, insofar as the Relevant Restrictions prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, in particular through the sea the port of Klaipeda. — order the Council to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant for its defence.
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 Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the principle of legality and legal certainty. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the EU’s WTO obligations insofar as they restrict transit of goods via the EU’s territory to other WTO Members in breach of Article V:2 of the GATT 1994. 3.
Third plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts, insofar as they prohibit the transit of potash from Belarus via the territory of Lithuania, are in violation of the Agreement on the Conditions of Transit of cargo from the Republic of Belarus using the ports and other transport infrastructure of the Republic of Lithuania. 4.
Forth plea in law, alleging that the Relevant Restrictions effected by the Contested Acts violate the freedom of transit provided for in the United Nations on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’). 5.
Fifth plea in law, alleging the violation of the right of the Applicant to pursue a trade and of the principle of proportionality. 6.
Sixth plea in law, alleging the violation of the principle of legitimate expectations.
Action brought on 24 May 2023 — Unilab v EUIPO — Cofares (Healthily) (Case T-288/23) (2023/C 252/85) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Unilab LP (Rockville, Maryland, United States) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer) Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cofares, Sociedad Cooperativa Farmaceutica Española (Madrid, Spain)
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Healthily — Application for registration No 18 324 697 Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 March 2023 in Case R 1959/2022-2