do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-244/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: classification, packaging product, tube, waste management








C_2013171EN.01004001.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/40





Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica v Commission
(Case T-244/13)
2013/C 171/80
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti Ibérica, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.
Case T-250/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013207EN.01003902.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/39





Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)
(Case T-250/13)
2013/C 207/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1101/2011-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘SMART WATER’, Community trade mark registration No 781 153

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-249/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — MHCS/OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, labelling, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013207EN.01003901.xml










20.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/39





Action brought on 2 May 2013 — MHCS/OHIM — Ambra (DORATO)
(Case T-249/13)
2013/C 207/65
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: MHCS (Epernay, France) (represented by: P. Boutron, N. Moya Fernández and L-E. Balleydier, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ambra S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare admissible the here concerned appeal and enclosures;










—


Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision;










—


Condemn the OHIM and the intervener to bear the costs.





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 containing a device of a bottle neck label and the word element ‘DORATO’ for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 131 228

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of a bottle neck label for goods in class 33

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.
Case C-245/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, damages, indemnification, interpretation of the law, official document, provision of documents, public debt








C_2013215EN.01000602.xml










27.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2013 — Holger Priestoph and Others v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-245/13)
2013/C 215/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Holger Priestoph, Matteo Antonio Priestoph, Pia Antonia Priestoph

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Question referred

Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of S-Broker AG, in the securities account of the applicants, and in respect of which the applicants had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicants — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?


(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.
Case T-245/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — United Kingdom v Commission
Date: 2013-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, fine








C_2013189EN.01002701.xml










29.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/27





Action brought on 2 May 2013 — United Kingdom v Commission
(Case T-245/13)
2013/C 189/56
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: D. Wyatt, QC, V. Wakefield, Barrister, and C. Murrell, agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Commission Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States, to the extent of an entry in the Annex relating to a 5.19% extrapolated correction of expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland in Financial Year 2010 amounting to EUR 16 513 582,57 (see OJ 2013 L 67, p. 31); and










—


Order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and of fact, and failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to EU funds in claim year 2009 resulting from errors in determination of eligible area in 2005 affecting the initial allocation of entitlements, and (in consequence) failed to take into account the fact that in the great majority of cases of over-payments to farmers the risk to the funds was a risk confined to approximately 22 % of expenditure, being the proportion of expenditure comprising the ‘area element’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law and fact, in that it wrongly concluded that the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (‘DARD’) failed to apply, properly or at all, provisions on recoveries of undue payments, penalties, and intentional non compliance, and that the Commission thus overestimated and/or failed to take into account considerations relevant to the scale of possible loss to the EU funds. In particular, the Commission:






—


wrongly criticised an alleged «systematic» recalculation of payment entitlements by DARD;










—


wrongly claimed that errors in 2005 could have material effects on the historical element of the entitlement value;










—


adopted the wrong method of calculation of overpayments;










—


adopted the wrong approach to penalties, in particular by:






—


adopting the wrong method of calculating penalties; and










—


wrongly claiming that a penalty should be imposed for each year in cases where a penalty was applicable in 2005 but not in subsequent claim years, in this case in 2009, where over-payment resulted from the same error as that penalised in 2005;














—


adopted the wrong approach to intentional non-compliance.