title: Case T-69/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission (Arbitration clause — Contracts concluded within the sixth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) — Reimbursement of costs incurred by the applicant plus default interest — Eligible costs — Contractual liability)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Ateknea Solutions Catalonia v Commission
      (Case T-69/16) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Contracts concluded within the sixth framework programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006) - Reimbursement of costs incurred by the applicant plus default interest - Eligible costs - Contractual liability)
      (2019/C 139/40)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by M. Troncoso Ferrer, C. Ruxió Claramunt and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Grønfeldt and M. Siekierzyńska, and subsequently by M. Siekierzyńska and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action based on Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Commission pay the applicant an amount of EUR 1258 533.89 or, in the alternative, an amount of EUR 1025 845.29.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Ateknea Solutions Catalonia, SA to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 165, 10.5.2016.


title: Case T-414/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/43

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
      (Case T-414/16) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 139/41)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Drex Technologies SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union

         (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-415/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/44

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
      (Case T-415/16) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 139/42)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-440/16: Judgment of the General Court 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/45

      Judgment of the General Court 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council
      (Case T-440/16) (1)

      (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
      (2019/C 139/43)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Souruh SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.


title: Case T-865/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2019 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities in favour of certain professional football clubs — Preferential income tax rate applied to clubs authorised to benefit from the status of non-profit entity — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Freedom of establishment — Advantage)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2019 — Fútbol Club Barcelona v Commission
      (Case T-865/16) (1)

      (State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities in favour of certain professional football clubs - Preferential income tax rate applied to clubs authorised to benefit from the status of non-profit entity - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Freedom of establishment - Advantage)
      (2019/C 139/44)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Fútbol Club Barcelona (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by initially, J. Roca Sagarra, J. del Saz Cordero, R. Vallina Hoset, A. Sellés Marco and C. Iglesias Megías, then J. Roca Sagarra, J. del Saz Cordero, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, B. Stromsky and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, A. Gavela Llopis and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, then A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs (OJ 2016 L 357, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2391 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.29769 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by Spain for certain football clubs;

                  2.

                     Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Fútbol Club Barcelona;

                  3.

                     Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case T-169/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Pethke v EUIPO (Civil Service — Officials — Assignment — Reassignment of a Head of Service to a post of principal administrator — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the service — Equivalence of posts — Discrimination on grounds of sex — Proportionality — Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Pethke v EUIPO
      (Case T-169/17) (1)

      (Civil Service - Officials - Assignment - Reassignment of a Head of Service to a post of principal administrator - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Interests of the service - Equivalence of posts - Discrimination on grounds of sex - Proportionality - Action for damages - Inadmissibility - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure)
      (2019/C 139/45)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Ralph Pethke (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Executive Director of EUIPO of 17 October 2016 changing the assignment of the applicant from the post of director of the ‘Operations’ department to a post in the EUIPO ‘Observatory’ department and, secondly, compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Ralph Pethke to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

         (1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.


title: Case T-439/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Yellow Window v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of a service for the implementation of a study on female genital mutilation — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Coherence between comments and the numerical score — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Yellow Window v EIGE
      (Case T-439/17) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of a service for the implementation of a study on female genital mutilation - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Coherence between comments and the numerical score - Non-contractual liability)
      (2019/C 139/46)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Yellow Window (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application (i) under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in procurement procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 and the decisions selecting as successful the tender submitted by Company Y and awarding that contract to it, (ii) under Article 268 TFEU for an award of damages in respect of those decisions and (iii) in the alternative, for compensation for irregularities in the award of that contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Annuls the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by Yellow Window NV in the context of the EIGE/2017/OPER/04 tender procedure and the decisions of 8 May 2017 adopting the tender submitted by Company Y in the context of that procedure and awarding it that contract;

                  2.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                     Orders Yellow Window to bear 25 % of its own costs and the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay 75 % of the costs incurred by Yellow Window.

         (1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.


title: Case T-450/17: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of a service for the implementation of a study on female genital mutilation — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Obligation to state reasons — Coherence between comments and the numerical score — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/48

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Eurosupport — Fineurop support v EIGE
      (Case T-450/17) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of a service for the implementation of a study on female genital mutilation - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Obligation to state reasons - Coherence between comments and the numerical score - Non-contractual liability)
      (2019/C 139/47)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (represented by: V. Ost and M. Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application (i) under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the EIGE of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in procurement procedure EIGE/2017/OPER/04 and the decisions selecting as successful the tender submitted by Company Y and awarding that contract to it, (ii) under Article 268 TFEU for an award of damages in respect of those decisions and (iii) in the alternative, for compensation for irregularities in the award of that contract.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Declares that there is no longer any need to rule on the decisions of the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) of 8 May 2017 adopting the tender submitted by Company Y in the context of the EIGE/2017/OPER/04 tender procedure and awarding it that contract;

                  2.

                     Annuls the decision of the EIGE of 8 May 2017 rejecting the tender which Eurosupport — Fineurop support Srl had submitted in the context of that procedure;

                  3.

                     Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                     Orders Eurosupport — Fineurop support to bear 25 % of its own costs and the EIGE to bear its own costs and to pay 75 % of the costs incurred by Eurosupport — Fineurop support.

         (1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.


title: Case T-107/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2019 –Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dienne — Earlier EU figurative mark ENNE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2019 –Aytekin v EUIPO — Dienne Salotti (Dienne)
      (Case T-107/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dienne - Earlier EU figurative mark ENNE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 139/48)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Erkan Aytekin (Ankara, Turkey) (represented by: V. Martín Santos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and G. Sakalaite-Orlovskiene, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dienne Salotti Srl (Altamura, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 1444/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Aytekin and Dienne Salotti.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Erkan Aytekin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred, in connection with the present proceedings, by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Dienne Salotti Srl.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.


title: Case T-216/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Pozza v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Place where main activity is pursued — Inter-institutional transfer — Decision to no longer grant expatriation allowance — Competence — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Pozza v Parliament
      (Case T-216/18) (1)

      (Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Place where main activity is pursued - Inter-institutional transfer - Decision to no longer grant expatriation allowance - Competence - Legitimate expectations)
      (2019/C 139/49)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Geoffray Pozza (Waldbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 8 June 2017 by which the Parliament no longer grants the applicant the expatriation allowance from the date on which he took up his duties.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action.

                  2.

                     Orders Mr Geoffray Pozza to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.


title: Case T-263/18: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — European Union figurative trade mark MEBLO — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/50

      Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2019 — Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO)
      (Case T-263/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union figurative trade mark MEBLO - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use)
      (2019/C 139/50)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Meblo Trade d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o. (Nova Gorica, Slovenia) (represented by: A. Plesničar, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2018 (Case R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Meblo Trade and Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Meblo Trade d.o.o. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.


title: Case T-321/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2019 — Serenity Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (NOCUVANT) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark NOCUVANT — Earlier word marks NOCUTIL — Proof of genuine use — Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/51

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2019 — Serenity Pharmaceuticals v EUIPO — Gebro Holding (NOCUVANT)
      (Case T-321/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark NOCUVANT - Earlier word marks NOCUTIL - Proof of genuine use - Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
      (2019/C 139/51)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC (Milford, Pennsylvania, United States) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gebro Holding GmbH (Fieberbrunn, Austria) (represented by: M. Konzett, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2018 (Case R 584/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Gebro Holding and Allergan, Inc.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Serenity Pharmaceuticals LLC to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.


title: Case T-459/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PEPERO original — Earlier national three-dimensional mark — Shape of an oblong biscuit partially covered with chocolate — Declaration of invalidity — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Earlier mark consisting of the shape of the product — Use as a trade mark — No alteration of distinctive character)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/52

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Lotte v EUIPO — Générale Biscuit-Glico France (PEPERO original)
      (Case T-459/18) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PEPERO original - Earlier national three-dimensional mark - Shape of an oblong biscuit partially covered with chocolate - Declaration of invalidity - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Earlier mark consisting of the shape of the product - Use as a trade mark - No alteration of distinctive character)
      (2019/C 139/52)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Lotte Corp. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: G. Ringeisen, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Générale Biscuit-Glico France (Clamart, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 May 2018 (Case R 913/2017-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Générale Biscuit-Glico France and Lotte.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                     Orders Lotte Corp. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-870/16: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 –Miserini Johansson v EIB (Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Prolonged or repeated absence on account of a non-occupational accident or disease — Remuneration reduced after 12 months of absence — Article 33 of the EIB Staff Regulations — Procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/53

      Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 –Miserini Johansson v EIB
      (Case T-870/16) (1)

      (Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Prolonged or repeated absence on account of a non-occupational accident or disease - Remuneration reduced after 12 months of absence - Article 33 of the EIB Staff Regulations - Procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of the disease)
      (2019/C 139/53)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Virna Miserini Johansson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Senes, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and K. Carr, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and seeking, primarily, annulment of a decision of the EIB dated 25 January 2016 and compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm associated with that decision and, in the alternative, solely compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm claimed in the main action and reimbursement of the costs incurred in connection with the health problems developed as a result of the severe stress suffered by the applicant and which are allegedly not reimbursed by the EIB’s health insurance scheme.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Ms Virna Miserini Johansson shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.


title: Case T-25/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — PAN Europe v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 — Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances — Withdrawal of the decision refusing access — Disclosure after the action had been brought — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/54

      Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — PAN Europe v Commission
      (Case T-25/18) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 - Documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances - Withdrawal of the decision refusing access - Disclosure after the action had been brought - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 139/55)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Buchet, I. Naglis and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 7604 final of 9 November 2017, in so far as it refuses access to documents relating to endocrine-disrupting substances.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

                  2.

                     The European Commission shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.


title: Case T-836/17: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/53

      Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — Sports Group Denmark v EUIPO — K&L (WHISTLER)
      (Case T-836/17) (1)

      (EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 139/54)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Sports Group Denmark A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: E. Skovbo, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: K&L GmbH & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 (Case R 311/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between K&L and Sports Group Denmark.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no need to adjudicate.

                  2.

                     Sports Group Denmark A/S shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.


title: Case T-178/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Active substance glyphosate — Renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/55

      Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
      (Case T-178/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Active substance glyphosate - Renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 139/56)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (represented by: A. Bailleux and B. Magarinos Rey, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011(OJ 2017 L 333, p.10).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Justice Pesticides, the Walloon Region, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL), Nature & Progrès Belgique (Nature & Progrès), SomeOfUs, WeMove Europe (WeMove.EU), Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Helm AG, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh TKI D.O.O. and Albaugh UK Ltd.

                  3.

                     The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

                  4.

                     The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, the Commission, Justice Pesticides, the Walloon Region, PAN Europe, HEAL, Nature & Progrès, SomeOfUs, WeMove.EU, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, Helm, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing, Albaugh Europe, Albaugh TKI D.O.O. and Albaugh UK shall each bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.

         (1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.


title: Case T-375/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament (Action for annulment and for damages — Institutional law — European Parliament — Work of a delegation outside the European Union — Decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan — List of the persons authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan which did not include the name of the applicant — Period within which an action must be brought — Late submission — Measure not open to challenge — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/56

      Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Gollnisch v Parliament
      (Case T-375/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment and for damages - Institutional law - European Parliament - Work of a delegation outside the European Union - Decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan - List of the persons authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan which did not include the name of the applicant - Period within which an action must be brought - Late submission - Measure not open to challenge - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 139/57)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Villiers-le-Mahieu, France) (represented by: B. Bonnefoy-Claudet, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for, primarily, the annulment of the decision of the President of the Delegation for Relations with Japan of 20 March 2018, listing the persons who were authorised to participate in an interparliamentary meeting in Japan and, in the alternative, the annulment of two decisions of implied refusal, and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, for repair of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that measure.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                     Mr Bruno Gollnisch shall bear his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Parliament.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-401/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — SFIE-PE v Parliament (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Interpreters’ strike — Measures requisitioning interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — Measure not open to challenge — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/57

      Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — SFIE-PE v Parliament
      (Case T-401/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Institutional law - Interpreters’ strike - Measures requisitioning interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - Measure not open to challenge - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
      (2019/C 139/58)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application under Articles 263 and 268 TFEU seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018 and the subsequent decisions of the Director General of Personnel of the Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5,10 and 11 July 2018 and, second, an order that the Parliament make good the non-pecuniary harm caused by those decisions assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                     There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene made by the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                     The Syndicat des fonctionnaires internationaux et européens — Section du Parlement européen (SFIE-PE) shall pay the costs, including the costs of the interim proceedings, with the exception of those related to the application for leave to intervene made by the Council.

                  4.

                     The SFPI-PE, the European Parliament and the Council shall each bear their own costs of the application for leave to intervene made by the Council.

         (1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.


title: Case T-460/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission (Action for annulment — Public procurement — Set-off of claims — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/57

      Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — eSlovensko Bratislava v Commission
      (Case T-460/18) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Public procurement - Set-off of claims - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
      (2019/C 139/59)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: eSlovensko Bratislava (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: B. Fridrich, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Verheecke, J. Estrada de Solà and F. van den Berghe, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 22 June 2018 seeking to recover the sum of EUR 229 711.16 by way of set-off of the payment to be made by the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) to the applicant against a claim of the Commission in respect of eSlovensko.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                     Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.


title: Case T-581/18: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 — ND (*) and OE (*) v Commission (Action for annulment — Discrimination alleged against European officials and other national residents concerning the method of calculating the net remuneration determining the tariff of certain social benefits — Coordination of social security systems — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring infringement proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
                  15.4.2019

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 139/58

         Order of the General Court of 27 February 2019 —  ND (*1) and  OE (*1) v Commission
         (Case T-581/18) (1)

         (Action for annulment - Discrimination alleged against European officials and other national residents concerning the method of calculating the net remuneration determining the tariff of certain social benefits - Coordination of social security systems - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring infringement proceedings - Inadmissibility)
         (2019/C 139/60)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicants: ND (*1) and  OE (*1) (represented by: A. Bove, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, acting as Agent)

            Re:

         Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission letter of 27 July 2018, notified to the applicants on 30 July 2018, by which the Commission decided to take no further action on their complaint against the City of Luxembourg, the State of Luxembourg and the Administrative Court of Luxembourg.

            Operative part of the order

                     1.

                        The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

                     2.

                         ND (*1) and  OE (*1) are ordered to pay the costs.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.


title: Case T-675/18 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance azadirachtin — Rejection of the request for confidential treatment — No prima facie case)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/59

      Order of the President of the General Court of 5 February 2019 — Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA
      (Case T-675/18 R)
      (Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Procedure for reviewing the approval of the active substance azadirachtin - Rejection of the request for confidential treatment - No prima facie case)
      (2019/C 139/61)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Trifolio-M GmbH (Lahnau, Germany), Oxon Italia SpA (Milan, Italy), Mitsui AgriScience International SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Raes, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Food Safety Authority on the requests for confidentiality made in relation to the conclusions on the Peer Review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Azadirachtin of 11 September 2018 (EFSA/LA/DEC/19777743/2018).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                     The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                     The order of 20 November 2018, Trifolio-M and Others v EFSA, (T-675/18 R) is cancelled.

                  3.

                     Each party shall bear its own costs.


title: Case T-55/19: Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/60

      Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council
      (Case T-55/19)
      (2019/C 139/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) and Bena Properties Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicants’ action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicants, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicants;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicants for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicants’ right to property and their right to respect for their reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicants consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to their reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which they are entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-56/19: Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/61

      Action brought on 30 January 2019 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
      (Case T-56/19)
      (2019/C 139/63)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-57/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/61

      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-57/19)
      (2019/C 139/64)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and his right to respect for his reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to his reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which he is entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-58/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/62

      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council
      (Case T-58/19)
      (2019/C 139/65)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;

                  —

                  as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

                  —

                  order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea and one alternative plea, alleging the harm that she has allegedly suffered and for which the Council of the European Union is liable.
      The main plea alleges that the restrictive measures at issue, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, they infringe the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, second, they infringe the applicant’s right to property and the right to respect for her reputation. That infringement was the direct cause of significant material and non-material damage to her, consisting respectively of damage to her reputation, on the one hand, and breach of contracts, loss of material and loss of income, on the other, for which she claims to be entitled to compensation.
      The alternative plea is based on the existence of a strict liability regime in the European Union.


title: Case T-59/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/63

      Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Makhlouf v Council
      (Case T-59/19)
      (2019/C 139/66)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and his right to respect for his reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting in damage to his reputation, suffered following his inclusion in the sanction list, in respect of which he is entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-61/19: Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/64

      Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Drex Technologies v Council
      (Case T-61/19)
      (2019/C 139/67)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Drex Technologies (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they in fringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-62/19: Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/65

      Action brought on 3 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
      (Case T-62/19)
      (2019/C 139/68)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

                  —

                  Accordingly, order the European Union to pay compensation in respect of all of the harm suffered by the applicant, in the amount determined, in equity, by the General Court;

                  —

                  In the alternative, order the appointment of an expert with a view to establishing the scale of the harm suffered by the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea in law and a plea in the alternative, alleging harm suffered by the applicant for which liability rests with the Council of the European Union.
      The main plea alleges that the disputed restrictive measures, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, it is claimed that those measures infringe the obligation to state reasons as provided in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union; and, second, that they infringe the applicant’s right to property and its right to respect for its reputation. It is claimed that that infringement has directly caused significant non-material and material harm to the applicant consisting, respectively, in (i) damage to its reputation and (ii) breach of contract, loss of equipment and loss of revenue, in respect of which it is entitled to compensation.
      The plea in the alternative alleges the existence of a system of strict liability under EU law.


title: Case T-72/19: Action brought on 5 February 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/66

      Action brought on 5 February 2019 — CRIA and CCCMC v Commission
      (Case T-72/19)
      (2019/C 139/69)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: China Rubber Industry Association (CRIA) (Beijing, China) and China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (CCCMC) (Beijing) (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018 imposing definitive countervailing duties on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries and with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, of a kind used for buses or lorries, with a load index exceeding 121 originating in the People’s Republic of China and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163, in so far as it relates to the applicants and their relevant members; and

                  —

                  order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that by making the injury analysis on the basis of the ʻweighted’ data of the sampled companies, the contested Regulation violates Articles 2(d), 8(1), (4) and (7) and 27 (juncto Article 10(6)) of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ʻbasic anti-subsidy Regulation’). (1) Even if assuming the weighting would be allowed, the way in which it was done results in violations of Articles 8(1), (2) and (4) and 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the inclusion of retreaded tyres does not allow the Commission to obtain any basis to logically progress its inquiry, in violation of Articles 2(d), 8(1), (4) and (5) and 9(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The injury and causation analysis ignoring the segmentation between new and retreaded tyres is not based on positive evidence and does not amount to an objective examination in violation of Article 8(1), (4) and (5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment of the price effects (price undercutting and underselling) and determination the injury elimination level violates Articles 8(1) and (2) and 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, by failing to take into account the significantly higher cost per kilometre of a new tyre as compared to a retreaded tyre and by relying on constructed export prices.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the incoherencies, inconsistencies and absence of a positive and/or objective evidentiary basis of the causation analysis violates Article 8(1) and (5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The contested Regulation also fails to appropriately examine other known factors to ensure that the injury caused by those other factors is not attributed to the dumped imports contrary to Article 8(1) and (6) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the rights of defence of the applicants and Articles 11(7), 29(1), (2) and (3) and 30(2) and (4) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation by failing to disclose and provide the applicants with access to information relevant to the injury and dumping determinations.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the level of the anti-dumping duties imposed by the contested Regulation violates the corresponding provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (ʻbasic anti-dumping Regulation’) (2) and Articles 2(10)(b) and 2(7)(a) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

         (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55).

         (2)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21).


title: Case T-84/19: Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/67

      Action brought on 12 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World)
      (Case T-84/19)
      (2019/C 139/70)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 (We IntelliGence the World) — Application for registration No 15 225 246

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1062/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-87/19: Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/68

      Action brought on 15 February 2019 — Broughton v Eurojust
      (Case T-87/19)
      (2019/C 139/71)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Parties

         Applicant: Jon Broughton (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

         Defendant: Eurojust

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul the contested decisions of Eurojust 62/2018/AD of 20 November 2018, AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27 of 4 May 2018 and the recovery decision of 4 May 2018 pursuant to Article 270 TFEU;

                  —

                  declare that French must be regarded as Mr Broughton’s second language and Dutch as his third language;

                  —

                  determine that the recovery ordered against the applicant is unlawful and cease it and determine that the applicant must be reimbursed the amounts recovered by Eurojust;

                  —

                  determine that Eurojust must return the applicant to the same legal position he was in prior to the contested decisions;

                  —

                  order Eurojust to pay the costs of these 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, directed against all the contested decisions

                              —

                              the investigation was not carried out objectively and carefully;

                              —

                              the facts which form the basis of the contested decisions were not established on the basis of a careful and independent investigation;

                              —

                              the decision is factually unfounded;

                              —

                              the applicant’s interests were not sufficiently taken into account, in breach of the ‘equality of arms’ principle.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, directed against orders AD 2018-26 and AD 2018-27: the decisions are factually unfounded

                              —

                              the facts underpinning the decision cannot support the decision;

                              —

                              the facts were incorrectly laid down;

                              —

                              the evidence was assessed incorrectly.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, directed against the recovery decision

                              —

                              the decision is factually unfounded;

                              —

                              the decision was insufficiently reasoned.


title: Case T-88/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencymachineassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/69

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencymachineassistant)
      (Case T-88/19)
      (2019/C 139/72)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 currencymachineassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 071

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1059/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-89/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (robodealer)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/70

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (robodealer)
      (Case T-89/19)
      (2019/C 139/73)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 (robodealer) — Application for registration No 15 225 212

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1058/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-90/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencyassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/72

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (currencyassistant)
      (Case T-90/19)
      (2019/C 139/74)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 currencyassistant — Application for registration No 15 224 876

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1057/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-91/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (tradingcurrencyassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/73

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (tradingcurrencyassistant)
      (Case T-91/19)
      (2019/C 139/75)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 tradingcurrencyassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 238

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1056/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-92/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CKPL)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/74

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CKPL)
      (Case T-92/19)
      (2019/C 139/76)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 (CKPL) — Application for registration No 15 368 897

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1060/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-93/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI moneypersonalassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/75

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI moneypersonalassistant)
      (Case T-93/19)
      (2019/C 139/77)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 AI moneypersonalassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 188

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1055/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-94/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (moneyassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/76

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (moneyassistant)
      (Case T-94/19)
      (2019/C 139/78)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 moneyassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 105

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1054/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-95/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI currencypersonalassistant)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/77

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AI currencypersonalassistant)
      (Case T-95/19)
      (2019/C 139/79)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 AI currencypersonalassistant — Application for registration No 15 225 097

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1053/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-96/19: Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CNTX Trading)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/78

      Action brought on 14 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (CNTX Trading)
      (Case T-96/19)
      (2019/C 139/80)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

         Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark CNTX Trading — Application for registration No 15 368 939

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 986/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.


title: Case T-97/19: Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AIdealer)

text:
               15.4.2019

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/79

      Action brought on 13 February 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (AIdealer)
      (Case T-97/19)
      (2019/C 139/81)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MasterCard International, Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

         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 AIdealer — Application for registration No 15 216 765

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2018 in Case R 1063/2018-2

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and MasterCard International Incorporated to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before the EUIPO.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 71(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 5 March 2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union trade mark, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, in conjunction with Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                  —

                  Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.