do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-659/13: Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competence, carriage of goods, commercial vehicle, data collection, dissemination of information, information system, parking area, transport safety








C_2014045EN.01004001.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/40





Action brought on 12 December 2013 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-659/13)
2014/C 45/70
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in its entirety Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 885/2013 of 15 May 2013 supplementing ITS Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the provision of information services for safe and secure parking places for trucks and commercial vehicles (OJ 2013 L 247, p. 1) and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.




In the alternative, the applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 3(1), Article 8 and Article 9(1)(a) of the contested regulation and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on 3 pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging the infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 2010/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof
In this connection, the applicant states that the Commission, by adopting the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the authority laid down by Article 7(1) of Directive No 2010/40 in conjunction with Article 5(1) and Article 6 thereof.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 290 TFEU
In this plea, the applicant claims that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded its delegated power to adopt non-legislative acts pursuant to Article 290 TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 13(2) TEU
In this regard, the applicant submits that the Commission, by the adoption of the contested regulation, exceeded the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties.






(1)  Directive 2010/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transport (OJ 2010 L 207, p. 1).
Case C-70/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Descriptive character — Word mark PHOTOS.COM — Partial refusal of registration — Equal treatment — Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet address, equal treatment, photographic industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014102EN.01000901.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/9





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-70/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Descriptive character - Word mark PHOTOS.COM - Partial refusal of registration - Equal treatment - Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded))
2014/C 102/11
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Getty Images (US) Inc. (represented by: P.G. Olson, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11 Getty Images v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Decision R 1831/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, rejecting the appeal brought against the examiner’s decision to partially refuse registration of the word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’, for goods in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Getty Images (US) Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.
Case F-142/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Simpson v Council (Civil service — Promotion — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he passed a competition for grade AD 9 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, indemnification, promotion, translation








C_2014039EN.01002702.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/27





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Simpson v Council
(Case F-142/11) (1)

(Civil service - Promotion - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he passed a competition for grade AD 9 - Equal treatment)
2014/C 39/49
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

Re:

Application for the annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD9 after he passed competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 9 December 2010;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Simpson.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2013, p. 26.
Case F-129/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — CH v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Early termination of the contract — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, dismissal, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2014039EN.01002803.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/28





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — CH v Parliament
(Case F-129/12) (1)

(Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Early termination of the contract - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment)
2014/C 39/52
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: CH (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and E. Taneva, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment contract and the decision rejecting his request for assistance seeking recognition of psychological harassment, and an application for damages

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 19 January 2012, terminating CH’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;










2.


Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 15 March 2012 rejecting CH’s request for assistance of 22 December 2011;










3.


Orders the European Parliament to pay CH the sum of EUR 50 000;










4.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CH.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 73.
Case F-135/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marenco v REA (Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Validity of the selection procedure — Stability of the composition of the selection committee)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, admission to examinations, invitation to tender, recruitment, servant (EU)








C_2014039EN.01002901.xml










8.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/29





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marenco v REA
(Case F-135/12) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Validity of the selection procedure - Stability of the composition of the selection committee)
2014/C 39/53
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Claudia Marenco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list of the REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 selection procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision communicated by e-mail of 12 March 2012 to Ms Marenco by which the selection committee of the Call for expressions of interest REA/2011/TA/PO/AD 5 refused, after review, to include Ms Marenco’s name on the reserve list at the end of the selection procedure.










2.


Declares that the Research Executive Agency is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Ms Marenco.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 74.
European Parliament decision of 12 December 2013 to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 30 October 2013 amending Annexes I, II and IV of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (C(2013)07167 — 2013/2929(DEA))
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Committee on International Trade, European Parliament
Subjects: China, Croatia, Ecuador, Maldives, Myanmar/Burma, South Sudan, Thailand, generalised preferences, least-developed country, tariff preference








C_2016468EN.01042301.xml










15.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 468/423





P7_TA(2013)0592
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) amending Annexes I, II and IV of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences
European Parliament decision of 12 December 2013 to raise no objections to the Commission delegated regulation of 30 October 2013 amending Annexes I, II and IV of Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (C(2013)07167 — 2013/2929(DEA))
(2016/C 468/86)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission delegated regulation (C(2013)07167),










—


having regard to the Commission’s letter of 25 November 2013 asking Parliament to declare that it will raise no objections to the delegated regulation,










—


having regard to the letter of 2 December 2013 from the Committee on International Trade to the Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs,










—


having regard to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 (1), and in particular Articles 3(2), 5(3) and 17(2) thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 87a(6) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas the Commission has stressed that it is essential for Parliament to adopt its decision before 16 December 2013, given the need for the delegated regulation to be published before 1 January 2014, enabling the timely reinstatement of Myanmar/Burma and the inclusion of South Sudan in the GSP scheme;










1.


Declares that it has no objections to the delegated regulation;










2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 303, 31.10.2012, p. 1.
Case C-159/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Ld a v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jacson of Scandinavia AB (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES — Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national business name Jacson of Scandinavia AB — Declaration of invalidity — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, brand name, consumer information, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01002302.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/23





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jacson of Scandinavia AB
(Case C-159/13 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark JACKSON SHOES - Application for a declaration of invalidity made by the proprietor of the national business name Jacson of Scandinavia AB - Declaration of invalidity - Manifest inadmissibility)
2014/C 52/40
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (represented by: A.J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Guimarães and G. Schneider, Agents), Jacson of Scandinavia AB

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 January 2013 in Case T-474/09 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda v OHIM, Jacson of Scandinavia AB, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 August 2009 (Case R 1253/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Jacson of Scandinavia AB and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços Lda is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case C-658/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 12 December 2013 — Wilhelm Spitzner, Maria-Luise Spitzner v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, transport regulations, traveller








C_2014085EN.01001201.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 12 December 2013 — Wilhelm Spitzner, Maria-Luise Spitzner v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-658/13)
2014/C 85/20
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Wilhelm Spitzner and Maria-Luise Spitzner

Respondent: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, to be interpreted as meaning that an extraordinary circumstance causing a delay to a flight also constitutes an extraordinary circumstance, within the meaning of that provision, for another, subsequent flight, in the case where the effect of the extraordinary circumstance causing a delay affects the later flight solely by reason of the operational organisation of the air carrier?










2.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of avoidability relates, not to the extraordinary circumstances as such, but to the delay to or cancellation of the flight caused by those extraordinary circumstances?










3.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that it is reasonable for air carriers which operate their flights in a so-called rotation system to factor in a minimum time reserve between flights, the length of which corresponds to the time spans laid down in Article 6(1)(a) to (c) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?










4.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that it is reasonable for air carriers which operate their flights in a so-called rotation system to deny boarding to passengers whose flight has already been significantly delayed due to an extraordinary event, or to transport such passengers later, in order to avoid a delay to subsequent flights?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-486/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X (Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access — Levying of excessive fees)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, disclosure of information, personal data, tax








C_2014045EN.01001302.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/13





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X
(Case C-486/12) (1)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access - Levying of excessive fees)
2014/C 45/23
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Party to the main proceedings

X

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Right of access to data — Communication of data undergoing processing — Meaning — Grant of access to data — Levying a fee.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority.










2.


Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that fees levied when the right to access personal data is exercised are not excessive for the purposes of that provision, the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data. It is for the national court to carry out any verifications necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
Case C-267/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres (Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment — Collective agreement which restricts a benefit in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry — Exclusion of partners entering into a civil solidarity pact — Discrimination based on sexual orientation)
Date: 2013-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cohabitation, collective agreement, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, equal treatment, remuneration of work, working conditions








C_2014052EN.01001201.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/12





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Frédéric Hay v Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres
(Case C-267/12) (1)

(Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment - Collective agreement which restricts a benefit in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry - Exclusion of partners entering into a civil solidarity pact - Discrimination based on sexual orientation)
2014/C 52/18
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Frédéric Hay

Defendant: Crédit agricole mutuel de Charente-Maritime et des Deux-Sèvres

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(b) of Council Directive No 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Admissibility of a national collective agreement which reserves an advantage in respect of pay and working conditions to employees who marry and excludes from the benefit of that advantage same-sex partners who have entered into a civil solidarity pact — Discrimination based on sexual orientation — Possibility of justifying indirect discrimination by a legitimate, appropriate and necessary aim.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding a provision in a collective agreement, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, under which an employee who concludes a civil solidarity pact with a person of the same sex is not allowed to obtain the same benefits, such as days of special leave and a salary bonus, as those granted to employees on the occasion of their marriage, where the national rules of the Member State concerned do not allow persons of the same sex to marry, in so far as, in the light of the objective of and the conditions relating to the grant of those benefits, that employee is in a comparable situation to an employee who marries.


(1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.