do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-2/12: Action brought on 9 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission and EMA
Date: 2012-01-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EU office or agency, administrative competition, appointment of staff, electronic mail, managing director








C_2012184EN.01002103.xml










23.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 184/21





Action brought on 9 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission and EMA
(Case F-2/12)
2012/C 184/45
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers)

Defendants: European Commission and European Medicines Agency

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for (i) the annulment of the Commission’s decisions concerning the drawing up and approval of the shortlist submitted to the EMA’s Management Board in the context of the procedure for the selection and appointment of the Executive Director of that agency, (ii) the annulment of the appointment of another candidate to that post and (iii) compensation for the non-material damage allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the pre-selection panel adopting a shortlist of candidates for submission to the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;










—


annul the prior decision of the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments of 14 March 2011 calling the four candidates on the pre-selection panel’s shortlist to an interview with that committee, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission’s Consultative Committee on Appointments of 14 March 2011 agreeing with the opinion of the pre-selection panel that the four candidates on the latter’s shortlist had greater merits, notified to the applicant by email of 14 March 2011;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011 adopting a shortlist of candidates;










—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 October 2011 rejecting the administrative complaint submitted under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and setting out the grounds of the European Commission’s decision of 20 April 2011 adopting a shortlist of candidates;










—


annul the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 91(4) of Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, that decision having been the subject of a complaint submitted to the appointing authority pursuant to Article 90 of those Staff Regulations;










—


order appropriate compensation for the non-material damage sustained;










—


order the Commission and the EMA to pay the costs.
Case T-407/09: Order of the General Court of 9 January 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Contracts for the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg — Complaint — Act not subject to review — Inadmissibility — Action for failure to act)
Date: 2012-01-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, privatisation, subsidised housing








C_2012058EN.01000902.xml










25.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 58/9





Order of the General Court of 9 January 2012 — Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft v Commission
(Case T-407/09) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Contracts for the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg - Complaint - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility - Action for failure to act)
2012/C 58/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (Neubrandenburg, Germany) (represented by M. Núñez-Müller and J. Dammann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Martenczuk and K. Gross, agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG (Berlin, Germany); and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG (Berlin) (represented by C. von Donat, lawyer)

Re:

Action, first, for annulment of the Commission decision claimed to be contained in the letter of 29 July 2009 declaring that some contracts concluded by the applicant regarding the sale of apartments as part of the privatisation of publicly-owned apartments in Neubrandenburg did not fall within the scope of Article 87(1) EC and, second, for a declaration of the Commission’s failure to act, under Article 232 EC, since the Commission did not define its position on those contracts on the basis of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article (88 EC) (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


Neubrandenburger Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission and by Bavaria Immobilien Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekte Neubrandenburg KG and Bavaria Immobilien Trading GmbH & Co. Immobilien Leasing Objekt Neubrandenburg KG.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-1/12)
Date: 2012-01-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, judicial inquiry, publisher








C_2012076EN.01001301.xml










15.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 76/13





Action brought on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-1/12)
2012/C 76/10
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 9 January 2012 by Den norske Forleggerforening, represented by Jan Magne Juuhl-Langseth, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Schjødt, Munkedamsveien 45, N-0201 Oslo, Norway.
The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority void; and










2.


Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:






—


The Applicant is the Norwegian Publishers Association. Its members are publishing houses in Norway.










—


The Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision No 311/11/COL of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, adopted on 12 October 2011.










—


The Applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






—


failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, according to Article 1(2) in Part I of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement (SCA); and










—


has not provided sufficient reasoning for its Decision, as stated in Article 16 SCA.
Case C-12/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2012 — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.
Date: 2012-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2012089EN.01001301.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 9 January 2012 — Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.
(Case C-12/12)
2012/C 89/20
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Colloseum Holding AG

Defendant: Levi Strauss & Co.

Questions referred

Is Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that:






1.


a trade mark which is part of a composite mark and has become distinctive only as a result of the use of the composite mark can be used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if the composite mark alone is used?










2.


a trade mark is being used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if it is used only together with another mark, the public sees independent signs in the two marks and, in addition, both marks are registered together as a trade mark?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).