do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-680/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, bank, contractual liability, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, ownership, principle of proportionality, shareholder








C_2014194EN.01002502.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/25





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — K. Chrysostomides & Co. e.a. v Council e.a.
(Case T-680/13)
2014/C 194/33
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Dr. K. Chrysostomides & Co. LLC (Nicosia, Cyprus) and 50 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 26 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;










—


Order the defendants to pay the costs.




In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:






—


Find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;










—


Determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;










—


Order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants (51 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.
The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.
The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.
Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: India, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), man-made fibre, originating product








C_2013373EN.01003001.xml










20.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/30





Notice of the expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
2013/C 373/11
Further to the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) following which no duly substantiated request for a review was lodged, the Commission gives notice that the anti-dumping measure mentioned below will shortly expire.
This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (2).









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Synthetic fibre ropes


India


Anti-dumping duty


Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1242/2010 (OJ L 338, 22.12.2010, p. 10)


23.12.2013






(1)  OJ C 85, 23.3.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 51.

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case T-692/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: airport, award of contract, co-financing, eligibility criteria, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, trans-European network, transport network








C_2014045EN.01004301.xml










15.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/43





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA
(Case T-692/13)
2014/C 45/74
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio SpA (SACBO SpA) (Grassobbio (BG), Italy) (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, lawyers)

Defendants: Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency (TEN-T EA), European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


primarily: annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;










—


in the alternative: declare that there was neither any fraudulent subdivision of nor any intent to avoid the activity for which co-financing was provided and, accordingly, annul TEN-T EA’s decision of 23 October 2013, and all the connected measures referred to therein, to the extent that, by confirming the decision of 18 March 2013, TEN-T EA considered that the external costs relating to activities 1, 2.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not eligible, resulting in a reduction by TEN-T EA in the amount of co-financing due and in a request for repayment of EUR 158 517,54, with all attendant legal consequences;










—


in any event: recalculate the reduction in financing decided on by the Commission to an amount which is considered more appropriate in the light of the principle of proportionality;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in Case T-270/13 SACBO v Commission and TEN-T EA (OJ C 207 of 20 July 2013, p. 46).
It should be noted in this regard that, in relation to the present proceedings, both defendants have claimed that the action is inadmissible in so far as it is directed against a measure which, in their view, is not final.
According to the applicant, it has brought an action against the decision adopted by TEN-T EA on 23 October 2013 as a purely precautionary, defensive, measure in order to draw attention once more to the unlawfulness of the decision to reduce financing.
The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put forward in Case T-270/13.
Case T-711/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01003701.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/37





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar (HARRY’S BAR)
(Case T-711/13)
2014/C 112/49
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

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 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1;










—


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 ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.
Case T-712/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014061EN.01001602.xml










1.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/16





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Monster Energy v OHIM (REHABILITATE)
(Case T-712/13)
2014/C 61/29
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonization 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 Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 given in Case R 609/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘REHABILITATE’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 10 834 802

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 4 CTMR
Case T-681/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014078EN.01001301.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/13





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)
(Case T-681/13)
2014/C 78/26
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farmaca International SpA (Turin, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present action and consequently annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 3 October 2013, notified on 17 October 2013, given in Case R 1186/2012-1;










—


Reject Farmaca International SpA.’s opposition to the registration of the mark ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’, so that that registration is granted;










—


Order that the applicant’s costs in the proceedings be awarded in its favour.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: Colomer Italy SpA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’ for goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Farmaca International SpA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark ‘ESTRO’ for ‘hair and cosmetic’ goods

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Articles 8(4), 7(1) and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.
Declaration of the Commission on Article 5(7) of the Specific Programme
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, administrative formalities, financial aid, invitation to tender, simplification of formalities








C_2013373EN.01001801.xml










20.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/18





Declaration of the Commission on Article 5(7) of the Specific Programme
2013/C 373/04

‘The Commission strongly regrets the inclusion of paragraph 7 in Article 5 introducing the examination procedure referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 for the granting of Union financial assistance to the projects or parts of projects selected following every call for proposals on the basis of the work programmes referred to in article 5 of the Specific Programme Implementing Horizon 2020. The Commission recalls that it did not propose this procedure in any of the sectoral MFF acts. This was intended to simplify the MFF programmes to the benefit of the recipients of EU funding. The approval of grant decisions without committee scrutiny would accelerate the procedure reducing the time-to-grant to the advantage of beneficiaries and avoiding unnecessary red tape and costs. Moreover, the Commission recalls that the taking of grant decisions is part of its institutional prerogative relating to the execution of the budget and therefore should not be adopted through comitology.
The Commission also considers that this inclusion cannot serve as a precedent for other funding instruments.’
Case F-97/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v FRA
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, administrative procedure, appointment of staff, damages, indemnification








C_2014085EN.01002602.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/26





Action brought on 20 December 2013 — ZZ v FRA
(Case F-97/13)
2014/C 85/44
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Laure, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

To annul the decision to nominate another candidate to the Senior Programme Manager position in FRA and the implicit decision not to nominate the applicant to the other position of Senior Programme Manager, mentioned in the vacancy notice.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Director’s decision of 5th February 2013 informing the Applicant that the Director of FRA had chosen to appoint another candidate to the position of Senior Programme Manager — Social Research (AD8) and, as a consequence, not to appoint her to this position;










—


annul the undated implicit decision not to appoint her to the other position as Senior Programme Manager in the vacancy notice;










—


annul any decision taken on the basis of these illegal decisions;










—


annul the decision of 11th July 2013 insofar as it rejects the Applicant’s complaint and as it refuses to initiate an administrative inquiry, conducted by an unquestionably unbiased, impartial and objective investigator, in order to establish the facts;










—


compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 550 651 euros;










—


compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 70 000 euros;










—


order the Defendant to pay for all costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7057 — Suntory/Glaxosmithkline (Ribena & Lucozade Soft Drinks Business))  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beverage industry, economic concentration, merger control, non-alcoholic beverage








C_2013373EN.01001901.xml










20.12.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/19





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7057 — Suntory/Glaxosmithkline (Ribena & Lucozade Soft Drinks Business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
2013/C 373/05
On 27 November 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7057. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case C-680/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2013 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Andreas Plakolm
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, transport regulations, traveller








C_2014085EN.01001402.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 December 2013 — Condor Flugdienst GmbH v Andreas Plakolm
(Case C-680/13)
2014/C 85/26
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Defendant: Andreas Plakolm

Question referred

Is the expression cancellation, which is defined in Article 2(l) of Regulation No 261/2004, (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in a situation such as that in the present case it also applies where, although the flight departed under the original flight number, it was not a non-stop flight as originally planned but involved a stopover scheduled before departure, and another aircraft and airline company were used in a sub-charter arrangement?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 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, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Decision
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: appointment of staff, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2014034EN.01000101.xml










5.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/1






DECISION

2014/C 34/01
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (2) and most recently by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1080/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of those Communities (3), in particular Article 30 of those Staff Regulations,
Having regard to the Bureau decision of 3 May 2004 on delegation of the powers of the appointing authority and of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE), as last amended by the Bureau on 4 May 2009,
Having regard to the expiry date of 31 December 2013 set for the following European Parliament reserve lists:
PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, AST/5/08, PE/119/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S and PE/121/S,
Whereas the Joint Committee has been asked to deliver an opinion within 15 working days, in accordance with Article 10a of the Staff Regulations,
HAS DECIDED:
Article 1
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:
AD/4/08, AD/1/10, PE/103/S, PE/104/S, PE/106/S, PE/107/S, PE/117/S, PE/118/S, PE/124/S, PE/96/S, PE/110/S and PE/121/S
shall be extended until 31 December 2014.
Article 2
The period of validity of the following reserve lists:
PE/99/S, PE/109/S, AST/5/08 and PE/119/S,
shall not be extended.

Done at Luxembourg, 20 December 2013.

Klaus WELLE


Secretary-General





(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 311, 26.11.2010, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 8/2014 of 20 December 2013 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2013-12-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, Belgium, EU waters, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2014003EN.01000301.xml










8.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 3/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 8/2014
of 20 December 2013
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in areas VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Belgium


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 39/2013 of 21 January 2013 fixing for 2013 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2013.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2013.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2013 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that 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, 20 December 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 23, 25.1.2013, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


83/TQ39




Member State


Belgium




Stock


HAD/7X7A34




Species


Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)




Zone


VIIb-k, VIII, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Date


10.12.2013