do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-77/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, admission to examinations, competition (EU), equal treatment








C_2012319EN.01001801.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/18





Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-77/12)
2012/C 319/32
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Nedin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the context of the EPSO/AD/208/11 competition.

Form of order sought







—


Annulment of the implicit decision to reject the complaint of 18 January 2012 and of the decision of the competition jury of 10 May 2012, because they infringe the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunities, and the removal of the legal consequences of the contested decisions.
Case T-325/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid for restructuring, amortisation, bank, control of State aid, infringement of EU law, rights of the defence








C_2012273EN.01002102.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/21





Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-325/12)
2012/C 273/36
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, J. Langer and M. de Ree, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision of 11 May 2012 with reference SG-Greffe (2012) D/3150 in Case SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and N 528/2009 — Netherlands/ING — restructuring aid);










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the 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, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and the principle of due care.






—


The applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to adopt the contested decision without affording the Netherlands the opportunity of expressing its views on the grounds on which the Commission comes to the conclusion in the decision that the Netherlands granted aid to ING by agreeing to amended repayment terms.










—


In the alternative, the Commission infringed the principle of due care by adopting the decision without taking account of the arguments put forward by the Netherlands in the earlier proceedings before the General Court which led to the judgment of 2 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-29/10 and T-33/10, and in which the Court concurred with those arguments.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU.






—


The applicant submits that the decision is incompatible with Article 107 TFEU, because in point 213 of that decision the Commission stated on incorrect grounds that the amendment of the repayment terms involves State aid.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU.






—


The applicant submits that the Commission has not implemented correctly the General Court’s judgment of 2 March 2012, and has infringed Article 107 TFEU, the Rules of Procedure and Article 266 TFEU because, in the decision, it made approval of the capital injection subject to the same compensatory measures as in the earlier decision of 2009 (which the General Court annulled in its decision of 2 March 2012), although the Commission estimated that the aid is EUR 2 billion lower than the previous amount.
Case T-338/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (K9 PRODUCTS)
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, distance selling, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2012295EN.01002702.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/27





Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands v OHIM — Julius-K9 (K9 PRODUCTS)
(Case T-338/12)
2012/C 295/49
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Hayward, United States) (represented by: J. Reid, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)

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 21 May 2012 (R 1961/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the action in relation to all goods in class 25, and the following goods in class 18 namely goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; wallets, purses; purses, not of precious metal; and










—


Order the proprietor to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘K9 PRODUCTS’ in black and white, for among others goods in classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark registration No 5966031

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 3933256 of the figurative mark ‘K9’ in black and white, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark partially invalid

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent it declared the CTM invalid and rejected the cancellation request in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-329/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, fundamental rights, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012273EN.01002201.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/22





Action brought on 23 July 2012 — Al-Tabbaa v Council
(Case T-329/12)
2012/C 273/37
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mazen Al-Tabbaa (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 126, p. 9), insofar as it concerns the applicant;










—


Annul Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (JO L 126, p. 3), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, alleging that the Council, in including the name of the applicant in the lists annexed to the contested measures, has:






—


committed a manifest error of fact and assessment in deciding to apply restrictive measures in question to the applicant and considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled;










—


failed to give the applicant sufficient or adequate reasons for his inclusion in the lists;










—


violated the applicant’s basic fundamental rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection; and










—


infringed without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property, to conduct his business, to reputation and to private and family life.
Case T-332/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid for restructuring, control of State aid, financial institution








C_2012287EN.01003501.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/35





Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ING Groep v Commission
(Case T-332/12)
2012/C 287/65
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ING Groep NV (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and N. Lorjé, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 May 2012 C(2012)3150 final, State aid SA.28855 (N 373/2009) (ex C 10/2009 and ex N 528/2008)-The Netherlands ING — restructuring aid; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached the principle of sound administration and the right to be heard by not consulting the Dutch State and ING with respect to facts and its views and assumptions that were pertinent for its conclusion that the amendment to the terms of the core-tier-1 capital injection constituted aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the market economy investor principle (‘MEIP’) test and failed to provide adequate reasoning when qualifying the amendment to the core-tier-1 capital injection as State aid and an aggravating factor in its assessment of the compensatory measures.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principles of sound administration, proportionality, legal certainty, equal treatment and the duty to state reasons by failing to take into account the amount of aid when assessing the compensatory measures, and by wrongly calculating the relative amount of the aid and the circumstances under which the aid was granted when assessing the compensatory measures.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, the principle of sound administration, proportionality and the duty to state reasons when making the price leadership bans legally binding on ING.
2012/511/EU: Council Decision of 23 July 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention
Date: 2012-07-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: food aid, humanitarian aid, international convention, signature of an agreement








L_2012256EN.01000301.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 256/3








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 23 July 2012
         
on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Food Assistance Convention
(2012/511/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 214(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5), thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The Union is a party to the Food Aid Convention 1999 (1) (‘FAC 1999’), which should no longer be in force as from 1 July 2012.












(2)


On 17 November 2010, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with a view to agreeing upon a Food Assistance Convention (‘the Convention’) which was to incorporates and reflects a modernised approach to food assistance, and which was to replace the FAC 1999.












(3)


The negotiations were successfully concluded on 25 April 2012.












(4)


It is in the interest of the Union to sign the Convention as the latter would help to achieve the humanitarian aid objectives referred to in Article 214(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.












(5)


The Convention is open for signature until 31 December 2012.












(6)


The Convention should be signed on behalf of the European Union, subject to its conclusion,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing of the Food Assistance Convention (‘the Convention’) is hereby authorised on behalf of the Union, subject to the conclusion of the said Convention (2).


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 23 July 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 222, 24.8.1999, p. 40.

(2)  The text of the Agreement will be published together with the decision on its conclusion.