do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-550/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament (Article 227 TFEU — Right of petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Decision to take no further action — Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, fundamental rights, petition








C_2014102EN.01000501.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/5





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — J v European Parliament
(Case C-550/12 P) (1)

((Article 227 TFEU - Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Subject not falling within an area of activity of the European Union))
2014/C 102/05
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: J (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-160/10 J v Parliament, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought by Mr J seeking annulment of the decision of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament of 2 March 2010 to shelve the appellant’s petition of 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009) without taking any further action — Lack of reasoning — Infringement of fundamental rights.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


The application for legal aid is dismissed.










3.


J shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
Case C-524/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark f@ir Credit — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark FERCREDIT — Refusal of registration)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer information, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01002201.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/22





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 — TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA
(Case C-524/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark f@ir Credit - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark FERCREDIT - Refusal of registration)
2014/C 52/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA (represented by: G Petrocchi, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina and R. Cartella, lawyers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank v OHMI — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2011 (Case R 719/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Fercredit Servizi Finanziari SpA and TeamBank AG Nürnberg — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign including the word element ‘f@ir Credit’ and an earlier international figurative mark including the word element ‘FERCREDIT’.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Team Bank AG Nürnberg is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
Case C-49/13: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví — Czech Republic) — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s. (Article 267 TFEU — Concept of ‘court or tribunal’  — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — Independence — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: jurisdiction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014102EN.01000802.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/8





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví — Czech Republic) — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.
(Case C-49/13) (1)

((Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature - Independence - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
2014/C 102/10
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MF 7 a.s.


Defendant: MAFRA a.s.


Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) — Criteria for the assessment of bad faith — Influence of circumstances which occurred after the application for registration was filed on the assessment of the good faith of the applicant — Consent by the proprietor of the trade mark to conduct which might limit its exclusive rights — Contracts concluded between the proprietor of the earlier trade mark and the applicant for the later trade mark not governing intellectual property rights — Tolerance of the contested trade mark by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark for a prolonged period.

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) in its decision of 22 January 2013.


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case T-455/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár (Appeal — Civil service — Europol staff — Fixed-term contracts — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Rights of the defence — Financial compensation)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Europol, rights of the defence, severance pay, temporary employment








C_2013377EN.01001201.xml










21.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 377/12





Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Europol v Kalmár
(Case T-455/11) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Europol staff - Fixed-term contracts - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence - Financial compensation)
2013/C 377/27
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Appellant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann, D. El Khoury and J. Arnould, acting as Agents, and D. Waelbroeck and E. Antypas, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: Andreas Kalmár (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: D. Coppens, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 26 May 2011 in Case F-83/09 Kalmár v Europol, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Police Office (Europol) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andreas Kalmár in the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, motor vehicle, tractor








C_2013330EN.01000501.xml










14.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/5





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
2013/C 330/04
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a), second indent, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are amended as follows:

On page 365:


8701 90 11 Other


to


8701 90 90


The first paragraph of the existing text is replaced by the following:

‘These subheadings include so-called “all-terrain vehicles”, designed to be used as tractors, with the following characteristics:






—


a handlebar with two grips incorporating the controls for steering the vehicle; the steering is achieved by turning the two front wheels and is based on a motor-car type steering system (Ackerman principle),










—


brakes on all wheels,










—


an automatic clutch and a reverse gear,










—


an engine specially designed for use in difficult terrain and capable in low ratio of delivering sufficient power to tow attached equipment,










—


power transmission to the wheels by shafts and not with a chain,










—


tyres having a deep tread design suitable for rough terrain,










—


a coupling device of any kind, for example, a towing hitch, designed to enable the vehicle to pull or push at least twice its dry weight,










—


a towing capacity of a non-braked trailer of twice its dry weight or more. This can be proved by technical documentation, user manual, certificate from the manufacturer or from a national authority, specifying exactly in kilograms the towing capacity of the all-terrain vehicle and its dry weight (the weight of the vehicle without any liquids, passengers or cargo).’






(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 137, 6.5.2011, p. 1.
Case T-606/13: Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, customs, exchange of information, excise duty, infringement of EU law








C_2014024EN.01003102.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/31





Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Léon Van Parys v Commission
(Case T-606/13)
2014/C 24/57
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Firma Léon Van Parys NV (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Vlaemminck, B. Van Vooren and R. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the letter of the Commission in which it requests supplementary information from the Belgian Administration of Customs and Excise pursuant to Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93; and the letter of the European Commission of 16 September 2013 in which it informs Firma Léon Van Parys of that request and the suspension of the treatment period pursuant to Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93;










—


declare that Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 has fully taken effect to the benefit of the applicant after the Court’s judgment in Case T-324/10 of 19 March 2013 relating to File REM/REC 07/07;










—


order the Commission to pay the 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 breach by the Commission of Articles 907 and 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, (1) as well as Article 266(1) TFEU. The applicant argues that the decision deadline of nine months, in accordance with the first-named provisions, had expired, and that the Commission as a result no longer had the competence to decide on the application for remission. As a result, the Commission is no longer competent in so far as it acts in a manner which goes beyond the pure regularisation of the decision partly annulled by the judgment of 19 March 2013 in Case T-324/10 Firma Léon Van Parys v Commission.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 907 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 and of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, concerning the right to good administration. The applicant claims that the Commission makes unlawful use of the possibility of requesting information, and thus suspending the deadline of nine months, in order to avoid a future application of Article 909 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, or at least to postpone it. It also constitutes breach of the principle of good administration for the Commission — as regards an issue for which a deadline of nine months in principle applies — to have conferred upon itself the right to institute a full investigation in 2013 into an application for remission that was submitted at the end of 2007 relating to imports from 1999.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
Call for proposals under the work programme ‘Capacities’ of the seventh EC framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, invitation to tender, research staff, scientific cooperation








C_2013330EN.01000901.xml










14.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/9





Call for proposals under the work programme ‘Capacities’ of the seventh EC framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities
2013/C 330/08
Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme ‘Capacities’ of the seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013).
Proposals are invited for the following call concerning trans-national collaboration on career pathway development for researchers.
The call deadline and budget are given in the call text, which is published on the CORDIS website.

‘Capacities’ specific programme:







Call identifier:


FP7-CDRP-2013-EUR-CD




This call for proposals relates to the work programme adopted by Commission Decision C(2013) 5571 of 2 September 2013.
Information on the modalities of the call, the work programme, and the guidance for applicants on how to submit proposals is available through the CORDIS website: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/calls/
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norwegian Sea, Sweden, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








C_2013330EN.01000601.xml










14.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/6





Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
2013/C 330/05
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


28.10.2013




Duration


28.10.2013-31.12.2013




Member State


Sweden




Stock or group of stocks


POK/04-N.




Species


Saithe (Pollachius virens)




Zone


Norwegian waters south of 62° N




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—




Reference number


64/TQ40






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.7016 — MHI/MH Power Systems) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, energy industry, merger control, metallurgical industry, shipbuilding








C_2013330EN.01001001.xml










14.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/10





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.7016 — MHI/MH Power Systems)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 330/09






1.


On 7 November 2013, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd (‘MHI’, Japan) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of MH Power Systems, Ltd (‘MHPS’, Japan).










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for MHI: shipbuilding and ocean development, power systems, nuclear energy systems, machinery and steel infrastructure systems, aerospace systems, and medium-volume mass production items,










—


for MHPS: thermal power generation systems, geothermal power systems, environmental equipment, fuel cells and other related businesses.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.7016 — MHI/MH Power Systems, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).
Case C-469/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Area of freedom, security and justice  — Brussels Convention — Judicial cooperation in civil matters  — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001  — Article 5(1)(b)  — Jurisdiction  — Special jurisdiction  — Matters relating to a contract  — Concept of ‘provision of services’  — Storage contract)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, provision of services, storage








C_2014102EN.01000201.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/2





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH
(Case C-469/12) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling  - Area of freedom, security and justice  - Brussels Convention - Judicial cooperation in civil matters  - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001  - Article 5(1)(b)  - Jurisdiction  - Special jurisdiction  - Matters relating to a contract  - Concept of ‘provision of services’ - Storage contract))
2014/C 102/02
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Concept of provision of services — Storage contract.

Operative part of the order

The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a contract relating to the storage of goods, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case T-594/13: Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01002902.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/29





Action brought on 14 November 2013 — Sanctuary Brands v OHIM — Richter International (TAILORBYRD)
(Case T-594/13)
2014/C 24/53
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sanctuary Brands LLC (New Canaan, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Richter International Ltd (Scarborough, Canada)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 August 2013 given in Case R 1625/2012-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.





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 word mark ‘TAILORBYRD’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 325 507

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘TAILORBYRD’, non-registered word mark and trade name ‘TAILORBYRD’ and the company name ‘Tailorbyrd, LLC’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for ‘clothing, shirts’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) CTMR.