do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-23/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor — Loss of promotion points)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, professional career, staff assessment








C_2011340EN.01003302.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/33





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission
(Case F-23/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Maintenance of the multiplicaton factor - Loss of promotion points)
2011/C 340/65
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of decisions notifying the applicants of their transfer of category, in so far as they allocate a grade lower than that which would result from the application of the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the multiplication factor and withdraw the promotion points of the applicants.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.










3.


The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 108 of 06.05.06, p. 32.
Case C-490/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 September 2011 — IBIS S.r.l. v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: court of arbitration, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, national law








C_2011370EN.01001602.xml










17.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 September 2011 — IBIS S.r.l. v PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.
(Case C-490/11)
2011/C 370/27
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IBIS S.r.l.

Defendant: PARTIUM ’70 Műanyagipari Zrt.

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Article 45(1) and (2) of Council Regulation 44/2001/EC (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a court in the Member State in which recognition is sought may, in the appeal procedure under Article 45, refuse an application for a declaration of enforceability of a foreign judgment if the certificate referred to in Article 54 of that Regulation was issued without the conditions contained in Article 66(2)(a) or (b) thereof having been met?










2.


If so, how is Article 35(3) of that Regulation to be interpreted in relation to the application of Article 66 thereof?










3.


Does Article 1(2)(d) of the Regulation [permit] the possibility of refusal of an application for a declaration of enforceability on the basis of the certificate issued by the court of origin, if it is apparent from the judgment in respect of which the certificate was issued that there is an arbitration clause?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).
Case T-505/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011355EN.01002101.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/21





Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Aldi v OHIM — Dialcos (dialdi)
(Case T-505/11)
2011/C 355/38
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L, Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dialcos SpA (Due Carrare, Italy)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in Case R 1097/2010-2;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dialcos SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘dialdi’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Case F-90/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, disability insurance, occupational accident, skin disease








C_2012025EN.01006701.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/67






Action brought on 26 September 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-90/11)
(2012/C 25/127)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Pollicino, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision by which the Commission refuses to grant the applicant entitlement, on account of an accident, to a partial permanent invalidity rate

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 19 April 2011;










—


give a definitive ruling to the effect that the ‘Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities’ cover ‘the entire cutaneous system’ and not just ‘deep cutaneous burns and pathological cutaneous scarring’;










—


direct the Commission to set up a new medical committee, with the task of reviewing the applicant’s case in the light of the correct interpretation of the ‘Rules’, that is to say, as construed meanwhile by the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in the context of its consideration of the present application;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-29/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: civil servant, pay, promotion








C_2011340EN.01003401.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/34





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission
(Case F-29/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)
2011/C 340/66
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, and, finally, by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category C and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in Grades B*3/B*4, maintaining their remuneration at the level prior to the change of category by applying a multiplying coeffficient, and resetting their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 121 of 20.05.06, p. 19.
Case T-506/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2011362EN.01001703.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/17





Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-506/11)
2011/C 362/25
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 53/2005-1;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for goods in Class 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg

Mark or sign cited in opposition: another earlier sign, namely the company name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’, which is valid in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the use of the subsequent mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ may not be prohibited and there is no right to prohibit use throughout Germany under Paragraph 12 of the Markengesetz (Law on Trade Marks), and infringement of the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should have waited for a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice and the res judicata of a judgment in the German proceedings to have the trade mark removed from the register.
Case C-496/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, management, provision of services, tax authorities








C_2011362EN.01001301.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-496/11)
2011/C 362/19
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA

Respondent: Fazenda Pública

Intervening party: Ministério Público

Questions referred







(a)


Is Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 concerning VAT to be interpreted as precluding the Portuguese tax authorities from requiring the appellant, a holding company, to use the pro rata deduction method for all the VAT incurred in its inputs, on the basis of the fact that the main corporate purpose of that company is the management of shareholdings of other companies, even when such inputs (acquired services) have a direct, immediate and unequivocal relationship with taxable transactions — supplies of services — which are carried out downstream in the context of the complementary activity of supplying legally permitted, technical management services?










(b)


May a body that has the status of a holding company and is subject to VAT on the acquisition of goods and services that are thereupon wholly transmitted to companies in which it has a holding, with payment of the VAT, when that institution combines the main activity it carries out (management of shareholdings) with an accessory activity (supply of technical administration and management services), deduct all the tax incurred in respect of those acquisitions by applying the method of deduction based on actual use set out in Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-511/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, market stabilisation








C_2011340EN.01003103.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/31





Action brought on 26 September 2011 — France v Commission
(Case T-511/11)
2011/C 340/62
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, J. Gstalter and J. Rossi, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its application, the applicant asks the Court to annul decision C(2011) 4973 final of the European Commission concerning State aid No C 46/2003 relating to contributions to the Association nationale interprofessionnelle du bétail et des viandes (Interbev). The Commission considered that the voluntary contributions that had become compulsory, levied by Interbev, constituted State aid compatible with the internal market.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, the first of which is essentially identical or similar to that relied on in Case T-478/11 France v Commission.
The second plea alleges a breach by the Commission of its obligation to conduct the administrative procedure within a reasonable time.
Case F-31/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, equal treatment, professional career, staff assessment








C_2011340EN.01003402.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/34





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission
(Case F-31/06) (1)

(Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)
2011/C 340/67
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category B and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in administrative posts, in so far as they determine the applicants’ grading pursuant to Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, maintain the application to their remuneration of a multiplication factor and reset their promotion points at zero.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.










3.


The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 131 of 03.06.06, p. 50.
Case T-507/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2011362EN.01001801.xml










10.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/18





Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-507/11)
2011/C 362/26
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 262/2005-1;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for services in Class 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg

Mark or sign cited in opposition: another earlier sign, namely the company name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’, which is valid in Germany

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the use of the subsequent mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ may not be prohibited and there is no right to prohibit use throughout Germany under Paragraph 12 of the Markengesetz (Law on Trade Marks), and infringement of the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should have waited for a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice and the res judicata of a judgment in the German proceedings to have the trade mark removed from the register.
Case T-502/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)
Date: 2011-09-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011340EN.01003001.xml










19.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/30





Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Sanofi Pasteur MSD v OHIM — Mundipharma (Representation of a device of crossing sickles)
(Case T-502/11)
2011/C 340/59
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC (Lyon, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mundipharma AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2011 in case R 1904/2010-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of crossing sickles, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 5164561

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark registration No 94500834, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 620636, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5; International trade mark registration No 627401, of the figurative mark representing a device of ribbons, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76 and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks was no longer raised in the appeal proceedings, and did not properly assess the likelihood of confusion.