do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-140/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU)








C_2013026EN.01007602.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/76





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-140/12)
2013/C 26/159
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the refusal to grant the confirmatory application made by the applicant to the Commission for access to several questions asked in the course of the pre-selection procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/230 231/12.

Form of order sought







—


annul the Commission’s decision refusing the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents;










—


where necessary and, in particular, in so far as their nature as decisions is established, annul EPSO’s decisions of 20 July 2012 in accordance with which the applicant was refused access to seven of the questions asked in the course of the pre-selection procedure for open competition EPSO/AD 230-231;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-497/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Romania, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005801.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/58





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
(Case T-497/12)
2013/C 26/117
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 679/2011-4; and.










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant





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 ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588321

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-498/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, access to EU information, administrative transparency, control of State aid, legality, provision of documents, rights of the defence








C_2013026EN.01005802.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/58





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou v Commission
(Case T-498/12)
2013/C 26/118
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Koinοpraxia Τouristiki Loutrakiou AE, O.T.A. — Loutraki AE — Club Hotel Casino Loutraki Τouristikes kai Xenodokhiakes Epikhirisis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the Commission’s confirmatory decision of 18 September 2012 — Αres (2012)1082114 — by which the applicant’s request for access to certain documents was refused, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action the applicant seeks, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 18 September 2012, which finally refused the applicant’s confirmatory request for access to the letter of 16 May 2012 from the Greek authorities relating to the quantification of the amount of unlawful State aid to be recovered in accordance with the decision dated 24 May 2011 (1) of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition.
In support of its action the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:






 


First, the applicant claims an infringement of the obligation on the administration to state reasons for the refusal decisions, given that in its reply, the administration confines itself to a general reference to the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001, without any further elaboration and without any real statement of reasons for the decision.










 


Secondly, the applicant claims an infringement of the principle of transparency, contrary to the well known Regulation 1049/2001 and Regulation 659/1999, (2) given that the defendant is not providing to the public the widest possible access to documents by neither interpreting nor applying strictly the exceptions laid down in Regulation 1049/2001.










 


Lastly, the applicant claims an infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU, and of Articles 6 and 20 of Regulation 659/1999 in breach of the applicant’s rights of defence and by extension in breach of the principle of good administration.






(1)  Decision of the European Commission of 24 May 2011, Ε(2011) 3504 final, on State aid to certain Greek casinos No C 16/2010 (formerly ΝΝ 22/2010, formerly CP 318/2009).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
Case T-496/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Romania, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005702.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/57





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (DRACULA BITE)
(Case T-496/12)
2013/C 26/116
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 682/2011-4; and










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant.





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 ‘DRACULA BITE’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588288

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2012352EN.01000401.xml










16.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

15 November 2012
2012/C 352/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2756




JPY


Japanese yen


103,66




DKK


Danish krone


7,4587




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80545




SEK


Swedish krona


8,6480




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2042




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,3595




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,566




HUF


Hungarian forint


284,28




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6961




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1600




RON


Romanian leu


4,5383




TRY


Turkish lira


2,2982




AUD


Australian dollar


1,2350




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2782




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,8876




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5727




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5622




KRW


South Korean won


1 388,09




ZAR


South African rand


11,4333




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9520




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5375




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 276,21




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9097




PHP


Philippine peso


52,630




RUB


Russian rouble


40,3848




THB


Thai baht


39,186




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6332




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9170




INR


Indian rupee


69,7560






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-495/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Romania, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005701.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/57





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — European Drinks v OHIM — Alexandrion Grup Romania (Dracula Bite)
(Case T-495/12)
2013/C 26/115
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: European Drinks SA (Ștei, Romania) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SC Alexandrion Grup Romania Srl (Pleasa, Romania)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 680/2011-4; and










—


Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the Defendant.





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 colour ‘Dracula Bite’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 7588247

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Romanian trade mark registration No 34847 of the figurative mark ‘Dracula’, for goods and services in classes 33 and 35

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 42(2) and 42(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-571/11: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan, Ioan Dan Câmpan
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2013108EN.01001803.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/18





Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan, Ioan Dan Câmpan
(Case C-571/11) (1)

2013/C 108/39
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
Case T-509/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Finland, Sweden, registered trade mark, serial publication, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01006402.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/64





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)
(Case T-509/12)
2013/C 26/127
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 147/2011-4 and reject the opposition; and










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 3529476

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registration No 126124 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Swedish trade mark registration No 43934 for the figurative sign ‘Vogue’, for goods in class 25; Finish trade mark application No T 199 803 628 for the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Registered auxiliary trade name ‘VO Gue’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-142/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, disability insurance, indemnification, occupational disease








C_2013026EN.01007701.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/77





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-142/12)
2013/C 26/161
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cambier and A. Paternostre, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Commission on the application for recognition of occupational disease, which the applicant brought under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, conferring on him a partial permanent invalidity rate of 20 % and establishing the date of stabilisation as 25 February 2010 and the compensation for his material and non-material damage.

Form of order sought







—


Declare the Commission liable for infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period and for various faults that it, or its bodies, committed during the investigation of the application for recognition of occupational disease brought by the applicant on the basis of the Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, in so doing;










—


annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 11 January and 7 August 2012;










—


order the Commission to pay to the applicant and to his family an amount of EUR 100 000 to make good the non-material damage caused specifically to the applicant independently of his illness;










—


declare the Commission liable for various faults, committed by it and its bodies, which contributed to the appearance, maintenance and deterioration of the applicant’s state of health and order it, consequently, to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 798 650 to compensate him for his material loss and EUR 145 850 in respect of non-material damage and miscellaneous expenditure; that overall amount may be reduced by EUR 268 679,44, which has already been paid to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of 12 % on all the abovementioned amounts, from the month of November 2004, the date on which the applicant’s application on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations could have been resolved;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-44/12: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session in Scotland — United Kingdom) — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, gender equality, motherhood, working conditions








C_2013108EN.01001807.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/18





Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Session in Scotland — United Kingdom) — Andrius Kulikauskas v Macduff Shellfish Limited, Duncan Watt
(Case C-44/12) (1)

2013/C 108/43
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case T-341/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015  — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information given to the Commission pursuant to the latter’s Leniency Notice — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Professional secrecy — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative check, administrative procedure, chemical salt, competition, confidentiality, oxide, professional secret








C_2015089EN.01001701.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/17





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Evonik Degussa GmbH v Commission
(Case T-341/12) (1)

((Competition - Administrative procedure - European hydrogen peroxide and perborate market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information given to the Commission pursuant to the latter’s Leniency Notice - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Professional secrecy - Legitimate expectations))
(2015/C 089/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Evonik Degussa GmbH (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Steinle, M. Holm-Hadulla and C. von Köckritz, avocats)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, M. Kellerbauer and G. Meessen, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 3534 final of 24 May 2012 refusing Evonik Degussa’s request for confidential treatment under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen Peroxide and Perborate).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Evonik Degussa GmbH to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.






(1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.
Case F-141/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, damages, indemnification, traineeship








C_2013026EN.01007603.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/76





Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-141/12)
2013/C 26/160
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant in the list of persons who have passed the tests at the end of the training programme which is part of the certification procedure and a claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the contested measure;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the damage suffered;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case F-50/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2012 — Ciora v Commission (Civil Service — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/198/10 — Non-admission to the competition — Action — Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-11-16
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, Romania, administrative procedure, administrator, admission to examinations, competition (EU)








C_2013046EN.01003202.xml










16.2.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/32





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 November 2012 — Ciora v Commission
(Case F-50/12)
(Civil Service - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/198/10 - Non-admission to the competition - Action - Failure to comply with the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
2013/C 46/64
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Cătălin Ion Ciora (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Bondoc, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Re:

Civil Service — Action for annulment of the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/AD/198/10 Heads of unit with Romanian citizenship (AD9) not to accept the applicant’s application.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;










2.


Mr Ciora is to bear his own costs.