do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-422/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)
Date: 2012-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012379EN.01001402.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/14





Appeal brought on 17 September 2012 by Industrias Alen SA de CV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (Cloralex)
(Case C-422/12 P)
2012/C 379/24
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Industrias Alen SA de CV (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: The Clorox Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11;










—


uphold the decision adopted on 16 December 2010 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, consequently, reject the opposition lodged by THE CLOROX COMPANY;










—


order THE CLOROX COMPANY, the opponent, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (1) on the Community trade mark (‘the CTMR’).






—


Error of the General Court in the comparison of the signs CLOROX and CLORALEX.










—


Error of the General Court in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.










—


Current coexistence in OHIM’s register of the term CLOR in Classes 3 and 5.










—


Agreements for co-existence of the marks concluded by the parties in relation to the marks CLOROX/CLORALEX in other countries.






(1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
Case T-412/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission
Date: 2012-09-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, domestic market, postal and telecommunications services, public sector








C_2012343EN.01002001.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/20





Action brought on 17 September 2012 — bpost v Commission
(Case T-412/12)
2012/C 343/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: bpost (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. Geradin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012 on the measure SA.14588 (C 20/2009) implemented by Belgium in favour of De Post-La Poste (now bpost), which was published in the Official Journal of the EU on 29 June 2012 (OJ 2012 L 170, p. 1);










—


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 breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and (3) TFEU, manifest error of assessment and violation of the principle of equal treatment, by reason of incorrectly concluding that the retail network maintained by bpost was not a distinct Service of General Economic Interest (‘SGEI’), and hence, finding that the compensation received from the Belgian State for the retail network constituted overcompensation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 106(2), 107(1) and 107(3) TFEU and manifest error of assessment, by reason of erroneously concluding that retail network costs, which are induced by the universal service obligation, should not be taken into account when calculating the amount of profits from the reserved area of the universal service that exceed the level of a reasonable profit.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) and violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, by reason of mistakenly concluding that net costs of non-mail SGEI’s must be offset with all the profits from the reserved area of the universal service, inasmuch as these profits exceed a reasonable profit.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 107 and 106(2) TFEU and infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity, by reason of the complete failure to carry forward bpost’s undercompensation accumulated over the years 1992-2005 to offset the amounts of bpost’s alleged overcompensation over the period 2006-2010.
Case F-98/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2012-09-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, promotion, staff assessment








C_2012343EN.01002401.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/24





Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-98/12)
2012/C 343/41
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises.

Forms of order sought







—


annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to Grade AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 June 2012 rejecting the applicant’s complaint directed against his non-promotion to AD12 for the 2008 and 2009 promotion exercises;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.
Case F-97/12: Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-09-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, appointment of staff, competition (EU), damages, indemnification








C_2012355EN.01003902.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/39





Action brought on 17 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-97/12)
2012/C 355/85
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Commission not to recruit the applicant after her success in the EPSO/AD/177/10-EPA competition and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 November 2011 refusing to grant the request of the European Commission Directorate General for Regional Policy to recruit the applicant by appointing her and assigning her as an official to the vacant post COM/2011/218;










—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 June 2012 rejecting in part the appeal against the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 November 2011 refusing to grant the request of the Directorate General for Regional Policy to recruit the applicant as an official;










—


Order the European Commission to reconstruct the applicant’s career;










—


Order the European Commission to pay EUR 14 911,07 in addition to payment of contributions to the pension scheme from October 2011;










—


Order the European Commission to pay EUR 2 500 in respect of the material and non-material damage caused, subject to increase or reduction during the proceedings, those sums to be increased by late-payment interest calculated from the date on which the sums were due at the rate applied by the ECB to its main refinancing operations plus two points;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-423/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 September 2012 — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket
Date: 2012-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, age of majority, family benefit, job application








C_2012355EN.01001102.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 17 September 2012 — Flora May Reyes v Migrationsverket
(Case C-423/12)
2012/C 355/19
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flora May Reyes

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, on certain conditions, can require a direct descendant who is 21 years old or older — in order to be regarded as dependent and thus come within the definition of a family member under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38 — to have tried to obtain employment, help with supporting himself from the authorities of his country of origin and/or otherwise support himself but that that has not been possible?










2.


In interpreting the term ‘dependent’ in Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 2004/38, does any significance attach to the fact that a relative — due to personal circumstances such as age, education and health — is deemed to be well placed to obtain employment and in addition intends to start work in the Member State, which would mean that the conditions for him to be regarded as a relative who is a dependant under the provision are no longer met?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).