do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-388/13: Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, river tourism, trade-mark law








C_2013298EN.01000901.xml










12.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 298/9





Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Costa Crociere v OHIM — Guerlain (SAMSARA)
(Case T-388/13)
2013/C 298/15
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Costa Crociere SpA (Genova, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, S. Bergia and G. Sironi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guerlain SA (Levallois-Perret, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 13 May 2013 given in Case R 2049/2011-4; and










—


Order the other parties to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant before the OHIM, as well as during the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The verbal mark SAMSARA for services in class 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 979 122

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: Community trade mark registration No 497 966 of the verbal mark SAMSARA for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (1).


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1
Case C-413/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2013 — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, collective agreement, competition, interpretation of the law, minimum pay, self-employed person, working conditions








C_2013325EN.01000902.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Netherlands) lodged on 22 July 2013 — FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media v Staat der Nederlanden
(Case C-413/13)
2013/C 325/15
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: FNV Kunsten Informatie en Media

Respondent: Staat der Nederlanden

Questions referred







1.


Must the competition rules of European Union law be interpreted as meaning that a provision in a collective labour agreement concluded between associations of employers and associations of employees, which provides that self-employed persons who, on the basis of a contract for professional services, perform the same work for an employer as the workers who come within the scope of that collective labour agreement must receive a specific minimum fee, falls outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU, specifically on the ground that that provision occurs in a collective labour agreement?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does that provision then fall outside the scope of Article 101 TFEU in the case where that provision is (also) intended to improve the working conditions of the employees who come within the scope of the collective labour agreement, and is it also relevant in that regard whether those working conditions are thereby improved directly or only indirectly?
Council Decision (EU) 2015/916 of 22 July 2013 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia establishing a framework for the participation of Australia in European Union crisis management operations
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Australia, agreement (EU), international dispute, ratification of an agreement, settlement of disputes, signature of an agreement








L_2015149EN.01000101.xml










16.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 149/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2015/916
of 22 July 2013
         
on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Australia establishing a framework for the participation of Australia in European Union crisis management operations


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 37 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 218(5) and (6) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


Conditions regarding the participation of third States in European Union crisis management operations should be laid down in an agreement establishing a framework for such possible future participation, rather than defining those conditions on a case-by-case basis for each operation concerned.












(2)


Following the adoption of a Decision by the Council on 26 April 2010 authorising the opening of negotiations, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy negotiated an agreement between the European Union and Australia establishing a framework for the participation of Australia in European Union crisis management operations (‘the Agreement’).












(3)


The Agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Agreement between the European Union and Australia establishing a framework for the participation of Australia in the European Union crisis management operations is hereby approved on behalf of the Union.
The text of the Agreement is attached to this Decision.


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


Article 3
The President of the Council shall, on behalf of the Union, give the notification provided for in Article 15(1) of the Agreement. (1)



Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 July 2013.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  The date of entry into force of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union by the General Secretariat of the Council.
Case T-379/13: Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, information technology industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013260EN.01005001.xml










7.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/50





Action brought on 22 July 2013 — Innovation First/OHIM (NANO)
(Case T-379/13)
2013/C 260/89
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Innovation First, Inc. (Greenville, United States) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the defendant of April 19, 2013 in the matter R 1271/2012-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the cost of the appeal proceeding before the defendant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘NANO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 157 421

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Articles 76 and 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
2013/393/CFSP: Council Decision 2013/393/CFSP of 22 July 2013 amending Decision 2013/382/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Afghanistan, appointment of members, diplomatic representation




L_2013198EN.01004701.xml










23.7.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 198/47








            COUNCIL DECISION 2013/393/CFSP
of 22 July 2013
         
amending Decision 2013/382/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28, 31(2) and 33 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas UŠACKAS as the European Union Special Representative (EUSR) in Afghanistan.












(2)


On 15 July 2013, the Council adopted Decision 2013/382/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2014.












(3)


A new EUSR in Afghanistan should be appointed for the period from 1 September 2013 to 30 June 2014.












(4)


Decision 2013/382/CFSP should be amended accordingly.












(5)


The EUSR will implement his mandate in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 1 of Decision 2013/382/CFSP is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1
European Union Special Representative

1.   The mandate of Mr Vygaudas UŠACKAS as the EUSR in Afghanistan is hereby extended until 31 August 2013.


2.   Mr Franz-Michael SKJOLD MELLBIN is hereby appointed as EUSR in Afghanistan for the period from 1 September 2013 to 30 June 2014.


3.   The mandate of the EUSR may be terminated earlier, if the Council so decides, on a proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR).’




Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 22 July 2013.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 75, 23.3.2010, p. 22.

(2)  
            OJ L 193, 16.7.2013, p. 22.
Judgment of the Court of 22 July 2013 in Case E-9/12 — Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2013-07-22
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, electricity supply, invitation to tender, local tax, price of land, private investment








C_2013309EN.01000501.xml










24.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/5





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 22 July 2013
in Case E-9/12
Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Sale of land by public authorities — Market investor principle — State Aid Guidelines — Well-publicised bidding procedure comparable to an auction — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)
2013/C 309/05
In Case E-9/12, Iceland v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the partial annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 261/12/COL of 4 July 2012 concerning municipal tax measures, the sale of real estate and the sale of electricity to Verne Holdings ehf., the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 July 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


dismisses the application;










2.


orders the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.