do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-29/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, civil servant, transfer of pension rights








C_2012133EN.01003101.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/31





Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-29/12)
2012/C 133/62
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the proposal recalculated by the PMO.

Form of order sought







—


declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;










—


annul the decisions annulling and replacing the applicants offers concerning the crediting of pension rights;










—


annul the decisions to apply to the applicants’ applications to transfer pension rights the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-120/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01000901.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/9





Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-120/12 P)
2012/C 165/15
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Bariatrix Europe Inc., SAS

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.


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

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1
Case C-122/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01001002.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/10





Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-122/12 P)
2012/C 165/17
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-152/09;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.


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

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1
Case T-113/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — Bial — Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Portugal, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01002001.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/20





Action brought on 5 March 2012 — Bial — Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)
(Case T-113/12)
2012/C 165/35
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bial — Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Probiotical SpA (Novara, Italy)

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 20 December 2011 in case R 1925/2010-4;










—


Order the defendant to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trade mark No 2408128 ‘PROBIAL’; and










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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 in dark blue and light blue ‘PROBIAL’, for goods in classes 1, 5 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 2408128

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 155284 of the word mark ‘Bial’, for goods in class 5; the trade mark ‘Bial’ being well known in Portugal; Community trade mark registration No 1400183 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Bial’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 42; Spanish trade mark registration No 2026481 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Bial’, for services in class 35; international registration No 490635 for the mark in standard characters ‘Bial’, for goods in class 5; emblem of establishment No 868 of the figurative sign ‘Bial’; Name of establishment No 35157 for the word ‘Bial’; logotype No 951 of the figurative sign ‘Bial’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the trademarks in question were not confusingly similar.
Case T-119/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, infringement of EU law, remuneration of work, rights of civil servants, social-security benefit








C_2012165EN.01002102.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/21





Action brought on 5 March 2012 — USFSPEI and Loescher v Council
(Case T-119/12)
2012/C 165/37
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Union syndicale fédérale des services publics européens et internationaux (USFSPEI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Bernd Loescher (Rhode Saint Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011 concerning the Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation adjusting with the effect from 1 July 2011 the remuneration and pension of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant Loescher, as well as other officials and servants of the European Union, arrears in remuneration and pensions to which they are entitled from 1 July 2011 onwards, together with default interest from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;










—


order the Council to pay the USF and the applicant one Euro by way of symbolic compensation for the non-material damage suffered through the wrongful act in the form of the adoption of Council Decision 2011/866/EU of 19 December 2011;










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on pleas in law alleging:






—


first, breach of Articles 64, 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereto, infringement of the principles of sincere cooperation and coherence flowing from Article 4(3) TEU and the principle of legitimate expectations and the obligation stemming from the adage patere legem quam ipse fecisti and










—


second, breach of the Council’s Decision of 23 June 1981 setting up the tripartite concertation by failing to ensure that the points of view of the staff and the administrative authorities were in fact made known to the Member States’ representatives before the adoption of the contested decision.
Case C-116/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs fraud, customs valuation, import (EU), originating product, processing under customs control, third country








C_2012138EN.01000701.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/7






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Trimeles Protodikeio Serron (Greece) lodged on 5 March 2012 — Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA v Greek State
(Case C-116/12)
(2012/C 138/11)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Trimeles Protodikeio Serron

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ioannis Khristodoulou, Nikolaos Khristodoulou, AFI N. Khristodoulou SA

Defendant: Greek State

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 apply to the determination of the customs value of imported goods where the contract is for processing or working of materials (exported to the country of processing without being placed under the customs procedure of outward processing) which is not at the level provided for in Article 24 of that Regulation or which is otherwise insufficient to permit it to be held that the origin of the goods produced is the country where that processing or working was carried out?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is a distinction to be made where the import, on the basis of invoices and other documents held to be inaccurate, appears to have taken place under a contract of sale, but it is proven that the contract was for non-substantial processing of materials originating in the country of import in return for a specific fee, which can be determined, and that the declared customs value does not correspond to the real price payable or paid?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, is a distinction to be made where there is also evidence of a practice that constitutes abuse of Community rules with the aim of enabling the interested party to derive an advantage?










4.


If it is held that Articles 29 and 32 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 can be applied to a case such as that described in Question 2, even when the objective circumstances and subjective factor of Question 3 coincide, what is considered to be the value of the component (in the present case sugar) which was incorporated into the imported goods and supplied at no cost to the importer, where the component in question, which could not be subject to a customs procedure of outward processing in accordance with Article 146(1) of the said Regulation, was not produced by him, but was acquired by him at the export price (which was lower than the price that applied on the internal market, since the product is subject to the refund system)?
Case C-118/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labelling, product safety, solvent, toxic substance








C_2012227EN.01000603.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/6





Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission
(Case C-118/12 P)
2012/C 227/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Enviro Tech International, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 as regards the Appellant's claim for damages; and










—


declare the Respondent liable for damages suffered by the Appellant; or










—


alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's claim for damages; and










—


order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for damages on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to establish the existence of unlawful action on the part of the Commission, the General Court breached European Union law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed an error in its interpretation of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-425/08 and, as a consequence, it made an error in law in failing to assess the third part of the Appellant's first plea of illegality in relation to ‘normal handling or use’ and concluding that the application for damages should be dismissed.
For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 should be set aside as regards the Appellant's claim for damages and the Respondent should be declared liable for damages suffered by the Appellant.
Case F-30/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, admission to examinations, competition (EU)








C_2012138EN.01003603.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/36






Action brought on 5 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-30/12)
(2012/C 138/85)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/204/10 of 13 April 2011 concerning the applicant;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-117/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 5 March 2012 — La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: franchising, provision of services, sale








C_2012151EN.01001802.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 5 March 2012 — La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L. v La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.
(Case C-117/12)
2012/C 151/32
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: La Retoucherie de Manuela, S.L.

Defendant: La Retoucherie de Burgos, S.C.

Questions referred







1.


Should the words ‘premises and land from which the buyer has operated during the contract period’ used in Article 5(b) of [Commission] Regulation [(EC) No] 2790/1999 (1) be understood as meaning that they are limited to the place or physical space from which goods were sold or services provided while the agreement was in effect or can they apply to the entire territory in which the purchaser operated during the contract period?










2.


In the event that the Court rules in favour of the first interpretation, in the case of a franchise agreement which allocates a specific territory to the franchisee, can the words ‘premises and land’ refer to the territory in which the franchisee has operated during the contract period?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21).
Case C-121/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2012-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012165EN.01001001.xml










9.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/10





Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Bernhard Rintisch against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09: Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case C-121/12 P)
2012/C 165/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the General Court (Court of First Instance) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-109/09;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the ground that the General Court infringed Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) (CMTR) [now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2)] and on the ground of misuse of power. According to the appellant the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74/2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by deciding that the Board of Appeal was right in not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the appellant. The General Court wrongly decided that the Board lawfully refused to exercise discretion when refusing to take the aforementioned documents into account.


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

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ L 78, p. 1