ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/63

Action brought on 24 September 2015 — Universidad Internacional de la Rioja v OHIM — Universidad de la Rioja (UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR)

(Case T-561/15)

(2015/C 389/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Universidad Internacional de la Rioja, SA (Logroño, Spain) (represented by: C. Lema Devesa and A. Porras Fernandez-Toledano, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘UNIVERSIDAD INTERNACIONAL DE LA RIOJA UNiR’ — Application for registration No 11 738 093

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2015 in Case R 1914/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision insofar as OHIM rejected Community trade mark application No 11 738 093 and, accordingly, allow the registration to proceed;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

The applicant claims that:

— the contested decision fails to correctly identify the average consumers of the actual goods or services;
1.

First plea in law, alleging non-compliance of the Decision C(2015) 4979 final on suspension of interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund with Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, p. 25): — according to the applicant, the contested decision infringes Article 92 of Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 as the expenditure concerned is not linked to a serious irregularity; — the applicant further puts forward that the Hungarian authorities implemented the operational programmes in compliance with EU law. According to the applicant, the beneficiaries procured the works and services for the implementation of the programmes in accordance with the Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114); — finally, according to the applicant, availability of an asphalt mixing plant in a specified maximum distance to the site at bid submission was a proportionate technical suitability criterion in the procurement of the road construction works.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 406/38

Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (AFRODITA COSMETICS)

(Case T-575/15)

(2015/C 406/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: Slovene

Parties

Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Nuñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid, Spain

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘AFRODITA COSMETICS’ — Registration No 11 798 287

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2015 in Case R 2578/2014-4.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/47

Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)

(Case T-629/15)

(2016/C 016/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCRUBMASTER’ — Application No 12 492 617

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 2197/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/32

Appeal brought on 28 September 2015 by LM against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2015 in Case F-109/14, LM v Commission

(Case T-560/15 P)

(2015/C 414/42)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: LM (Ispra, Italy) (represented by: L. Ribolzi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested order.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 July 2015 (Case F-109/14), which dismissed as manifestly unfounded an action seeking an order that the Commission pay the appellant, in respect of the survivor’s pension which she receives, 35 % of the retirement pension received by her former spouse at the time of his death.

In support of her claims, the appellant submits that the Civil Service Tribunal did not examine her request to increase the pension in accordance with Article 25 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognise and respect the right of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/72

Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Osho Lotus Commune v OHIM — Osho International Foundation (OSHO)

(Case T-670/15)

(2016/C 027/91)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Osho Lotus Commune e.V. (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Viefhues, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Osho International Foundation (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘OSHO’ — Application for registration No 1 224 831

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 September 2015 in Case R 1997/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM and, where relevant, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 16/39

Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice

(Case T-532/15 P)

(2016/C 016/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

— accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;

— rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings in Case F-64/13;

— order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs;

— reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

1. First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the basic rights of defence.

2. Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the plea in law alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and of illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 (1) was rejected in manifest breach of the principle of legality, of textual interpretation and of the hierarchy of norms of the EU legal order.

3. Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, with regard in particular to the limited review by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of the content of staff reports.

4. Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST did not rule on the application for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure.

5. Fifth ground of appeal, alleging unjustified refusal to examine the validity of the criticisms expressed by the appellant and failure to take into consideration the opinions expressed by the rating committee.

6. Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST held that the appellant was obliged to apply to the Court under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking compensation for the delay in drawing up the staff report.

(1) Decision of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/71

Action brought on 1 December 2015 — Bodegas Vega Sicilia v OHIM (TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA)

(Case T-696/15)

(2016/C 038/95)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Bodegas Vega Sicilia, SA (Valbuena de Duero, Spain) (represented by: S. Alonso Maruri, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘TEMPOS VEGA SICILIA’ — Application for registration No 13 066 121

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2015 in Case R 285/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and, accordingly, declare inapplicable the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2015 in Case R 285/2015-4;

— annul and, accordingly, declare inapplicable the refusal decision of OHIM of 8 December 2014;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/62

Action brought on 6 October 2015 — Flamagas v OHIM — MatMind (CLIPPER)

(Case T-580/15)

(2016/C 038/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, G. Hinarejos Mulliez and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MatMind Srl (Formello, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community tridimensional mark (Shape of lighter containing the word element ‘CLIPPER’) — Community trade mark No 4 758 652

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2015 in Case R 924/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— confirm the decision of 22/03/2013 of the Cancellation Division in Cancellation Proceedings No. C 5642 against Community trademark registration No. 4 758 652;

— order the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

— Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/78

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica v Parliament

(Case T-665/15)

(2016/C 048/86)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Baltijas pētnieciskās žurnālistikas centrs Re:Baltica (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8305 C of the European Parliament of 15 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/85

Action brought on 29 November 2015 — Marcas Costa Brava v OHIM — Excellent Brands JMI (Cremcaffé)

(Case T-690/15)

(2016/C 048/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Marcas Costa Brava, SL (Sils, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Excellent Brands JMI Ltd (Baar, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in red and white colours containing the word element ‘Cremcaffé’ — Community trade mark No 11 407 021

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2015 in Case R 2586/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— consider proved the use of the Community Trademark No 2 423 705 Class 30 deemed and the Community Trademark application No 11 407 021 is incompatible with the Community Trademark No 2 423 705;

— order OHIM and possible co-defendants to pay all costs of the procedure.

Plea in law
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/55

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Malle v Parliament

(Case T-641/15)

(2016/C 048/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Tanja Malle (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8324 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 48/63

Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Toth v Parliament

(Case T-649/15)

(2016/C 048/71)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Balazs Toth (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul decision A(2015)8490 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

— order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

1. First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

2. Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

3. Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

4. Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

5. Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).