do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-430/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 August 2013 by the Comité économique et social européen (CESE) against the judgment of 26 June 2013 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-21/12 Achab v CESE
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, expatriate worker, indemnification








C_2013325EN.01003801.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/38





Appeal brought on 19 August 2013 by the Comité économique et social européen (CESE) against the judgment of 26 June 2013 of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-21/12 Achab v CESE
(Case T-430/13 P)
2013/C 325/63
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Comité économique et social européen (CESE) (represented by: M. Arsène, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Mohammed Achab (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant requests the General Court to:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-21/12 in so far as it annuls the CESE's decision of 9 June 2011 concerning the repayment of the expatriation allowance paid to Mr Achab after 1 July 2010 and orders the CESE to bear its own costs and half of the costs incurred by the applicant at first instance;










—


uphold the order sought by the appellant on appeal, that is to say dismiss the action as wholly unfounded;










—


order the respondent in the appeal to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on five grounds:






1.


First ground, alleging errors of law in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal erred in holding that the conditions for the repayment of the amount received in error were not fulfilled.










2.


Second ground, alleging an error of law in so far as the judgment under appeal contributes to the unjust enrichment of the applicant at first instance.










3.


Third ground, alleging a manifest error of assessment, the Civil Service Tribunal having wrongly considered that the CESE had never communicated with its staff in order to draw their attention to the consequences of naturalisation.










4.


Fourth ground, alleging an error of law owing to the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal breached the principle according to which financial provisions are to be applied strictly and the principle that provisions which lay down exceptions must be interpreted in a limited and restrictive way.










5.


Fifth ground, alleging an error of law with regard to the allocation of expenses.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2013 of 19 August 2013 withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: common organisation of markets, import (EU), import licence, sugar product, tariff quota








L_2013222EN.01001101.xml










20.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 222/11








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 792/2013
of 19 August 2013
         
withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector (2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The submission of applications for import licences concerning order numbers 09.4319 and 09.4320 was suspended as from 27 September 2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 of 26 September 2012 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2012 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.












(2)


Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for these order numbers. The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The suspension of submission of applications for import licences for order numbers 09.4319 and 09.4320 as from 27 September 2012 laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 is withdrawn.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 19 August 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Jerzy PLEWA
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.

(3)  
            OJ L 259, 27.9.2012, p. 3.
Case T-431/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01005701.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/57





Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)
(Case T-431/13)
2013/C 344/103
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action admissible and well-founded, and, as a consequence;










—


Annul in part the contested decision, in that it refused to declare the invalidity of the Community trade mark at issue based on the marks Nos 02 3 167 081, No 02 3 167 084 and No 794 040, and the other unregistered signs;










—


Uphold the contested decision, in that it declared the invalidity in part of mark No 3 590 981 on the basis of the earlier mark No 02 3 143 685;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘METROPOL’ for the goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 590 981

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd

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

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National word mark ‘METROPOLE’ and national and international figurative marks ‘METROPOLE gestion’ for the services in Class 36

Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application is rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-425/13: Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Giant (China) v Council
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2013325EN.01003602.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/36





Action brought on 19 August 2013 — Giant (China) v Council
(Case T-425/13)
2013/C 325/61
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giant (China) Co. Ltd (Kunshan, China) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People's Republic of China following an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 17), in so far as it relates to the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the that the Council applied the wrong legal test to determine that Jinshan and Giant China formed a single economic entity thereby violating Article 9(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the basic regulation).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment when concluding that Giant China and the Jinshan group of companies have a close commercial and structural relationship.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council violated Article 18 of the basic regulation by requesting the production of information that was not necessary and could not reasonably be expected to be provided by Giant China.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that Giant China did not claim that obtaining the information relating to Jinshan was unreasonably burdensome.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the evidence submitted by applicant could not be verified.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council violated the rights of defense of Giant China by requesting information it was unable to provide and by dismissing the alternative evidence adduced.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Council made a manifest error of assessment in considering that the imposition of an individual duty on Giant China would have created a risk of circumvention.










8.


Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Council applied different criteria in assessing whether there was a risk of circumvention in the case of the applicant than the criteria applied for other producers and thereby violated the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality.
Case C-459/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: right to health, vaccination








C_2013344EN.01004401.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/44





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Milica Široká v Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-459/13)
2013/C 344/75
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Milica Široká

Defendant: Úrad verejného zdravotníctva Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted, in the spirit of the European legal tradition, as authorising every bearer of that right to choose whether to make use of or refuse access to preventative healthcare together with the possibility of using medical care without regard to the mandatory conditions set out in national laws and procedures, or does the public interest in ensuring a high level of health protection for European Union citizens not enable individuals to make that choice?










2.


On a proper interpretation of Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular paragraphs 1 and 4(c) thereof, does the European Union objective of, in particular, preventing physical and mental illness and obviating sources of danger to physical and mental health, preclude European Union citizens from refusing ‘compulsory’ vaccination, on the ground that that attitude represents a threat to public health?










3.


Does parental responsibility for the purpose of Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, which concerns in particular the unifying principle of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, take precedence over the public interest in the protection of health, in favour of the parental care of a minor?
Case C-458/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.
Date: 2013-08-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: automatic game, copyright, software








C_2013344EN.01004301.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/43





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 August 2013 — Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, and Others v Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Nintendo of America Inc.
(Case C-458/13)
2013/C 344/74
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants on a point of law: Andreas Grund acting as administrator in the insolvency proceedings concerning the assets of SR-Tronic GmbH, Jürgen Reiser, Dirk Seidler

Respondents on a point of law: Nintendo Co. Ltd., Nintendo of America Inc.

Question referred

Does Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) preclude the application of a provision (in this case Paragraph 95a(3) of the UrhG [Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte, Law on copyright and related rights]) which transposes Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC into national law if the technological measure in question protects not only works or other subject-matter but also computer programs?


(1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).