do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-422/12 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Industrias Alen SA de CV v The Clorox Company, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CLORALEX — Earlier national word mark CLOROX — Likelihood of confusion — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Cross-appeal — Article 176 of the Rules of Procedure — Requirement to introduce the cross-appeal by a separate document)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01001601.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/16





Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Industrias Alen SA de CV v The Clorox Company, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-422/12 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CLORALEX - Earlier national word mark CLOROX - Likelihood of confusion - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Cross-appeal - Article 176 of the Rules of Procedure - Requirement to introduce the cross-appeal by a separate document))
2014/C 112/18
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Industrias Alen SA de CV (represented by: A. Padial Martinez, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: The Clorox Company (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2012 in Case T-135/11 Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX), by which that court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 December 2010 (Case R 521/2009-4).

Operative part of the order







1.


The main appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed.










2.


Industrias Alen SA de CV is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by The Clorox Company.










3.


The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.
Case C-296/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Contributions paid to a savings pension — Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State — Coherence of the tax system — Efficacy of fiscal supervision)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of capital, savings, supplementary pension, tax inspection, tax on income, tax relief








C_2014093EN.01000701.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/7





Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-296/12) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Contributions paid to a savings pension - Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State - Coherence of the tax system - Efficacy of fiscal supervision)
2014/C 93/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Payments to a savings pension — Tax reduction — Payments made definitively in Belgium.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by adopting and maintaining the tax reduction in respect of contributions paid to a savings pension in so far as that reduction is applicable only in respect of payments to institutions and funds established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU.










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7035 — Austevoll Seafood/Kvefi/JV)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, fish product, food industry, merger control








C_2014027EN.01000201.xml










30.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/2





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7035 — Austevoll Seafood/Kvefi/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 27/03)
On 19 December 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 32013M7035. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case C-48/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dangerous substance, environmental protection, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), legal basis, principle of legal certainty, public health, radioactive materials, water consumption, water pollution








C_2014102EN.01002101.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/21





Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-48/14)
2014/C 102/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. (1)











—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.
In the first place, the Parliament claims that the choice of legal basis made by the Council is mistaken, on the ground that the measures covered by the contested directive fall within the responsibilities of the European Union in the field of the protection of the environment, referred to in Article 192 TFEU. Those measures should therefore have been adopted on the basis of that article, following the ordinary legislative procedure, and not on the basis of Articles 31 and 32 EA.
In the second place, the Parliament claims that the contested directive undermines legal certainty in so far as it establishes rules of review and analysis which duplicate those already in force under Directive 98/83/EC. (2)

In the final place, the Parliament considers that by adopting the contested directive, the Council infringed the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions, referred to in Article 13(2) TEU.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 296, p. 12.

(2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014027EN.01000301.xml










30.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

29 January 2014
(2014/C 27/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3608




JPY


Japanese yen


139,73




DKK


Danish krone


7,4625




GBP


Pound sterling


0,82210




SEK


Swedish krona


8,8005




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2255




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4380




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,540




HUF


Hungarian forint


307,37




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2130




RON


Romanian leu


4,5193




TRY


Turkish lira


3,0445




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5535




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5173




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5653




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6436




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7345




KRW


South Korean won


1 463,12




ZAR


South African rand


15,1676




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2402




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6465




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 548,36




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5365




PHP


Philippine peso


61,599




RUB


Russian rouble


47,7235




THB


Thai baht


44,791




BRL


Brazilian real


3,3172




MXN


Mexican peso


18,1150




INR


Indian rupee


85,1110






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7126 — Hellman & Friedman/Scout24)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control








C_2014027EN.01000102.xml










30.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7126 — Hellman & Friedman/Scout24)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2014/C 27/02)
On 23 January 2014, 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 32014M7126. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.
Case T-71/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01002901.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/29






Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Swatch v OHIM — Panavision Europe (SWATCHBALL)
(Case T-71/14)
(2014/C 129/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Panavision Europe Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 November 2013 given in Case R 470/2012-2.





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 ‘SWATCHBALL’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 543 524
         

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International Registrations and Community trade mark registrations of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘swatch’ and the word mark ‘SWATCH’
         

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
Case C-25/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona — Spain) — France Telecom España, SA v Organismo de Gestión Tributaria de la Diputación de Barcelona (Request for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Fee for the private use or the special right of use for the area under and on local public land imposed on operators supplying electronic communications services — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Answer able clearly to be deduced from the case-law)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: provision of services, public property, service concession, tax, transmission network








C_2014112EN.01001801.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/18





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona — Spain) — France Telecom España, SA v Organismo de Gestión Tributaria de la Diputación de Barcelona
(Case C-25/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Fee for the private use or the special right of use for the area under and on local public land imposed on operators supplying electronic communications services - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Answer able clearly to be deduced from the case-law))
2014/C 112/21
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona — Spain

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: France Telecom Espana, SA

Defendant: Organismo de Gestión Tributaria de la Diputación de Barcelona

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo de Barcelona — Interpretation of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘the Authorisation Directive’) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Fees for rights to use and to install facilities — Municipal public land — Transfer of rights and transfer of management of use.

Operative part of the order

European Union law must be interpreted, in the light of the judgment in Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11 Vodafone España and France Telecom España [2012] ECR, as precluding the application of a fee for the use and operation of resources installed on or under public or private property, within the meaning of Article 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (the Authorisation Directive), to operators supplying electronic communications services which are not the owners of those resources.


(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.
Case C-372/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: marketing standard, medicinal product, patent








C_2014078EN.01000201.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 2 July 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia
(Case C-372/13)
2014/C 78/02
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

Defendant: SiegerPharma Anonimi Farmakeftiki Etairia
The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.
Case F-151/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2014  — Ohrgaard v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Residence condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Performance of duties in an international organisation — Concept — Work experience period of five months at the Commission — Exclusion)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: expatriate worker, indemnification, international organisation, probationary period, regulations for civil servants








C_2014223EN.01006701.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/67





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2014 — Ohrgaard v Commission
(Case F-151/12) (1)

((Civil Service - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Residence condition laid down in Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Performance of duties in an international organisation - Concept - Work experience period of five months at the Commission - Exclusion))
2014/C 223/69
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jakob Ohrgaard (Frederiksberg, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 6 March 2012 refusing Mr Ohrgaard the benefit of the expatriation allowance, as amended by the decision of 31 August 2012 rejecting the claim;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Ohrgaard.






(1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013, p. 26.
Case C-122/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Firenze — Italy) — Paola C v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12 — Compensation of victims of violent intentional crime — Purely internal situation — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: help for victims, indemnification, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2014112EN.01001901.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/19





Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Firenze — Italy) — Paola C v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-122/13) (1)

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12 - Compensation of victims of violent intentional crime - Purely internal situation - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
2014/C 112/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Firenze

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paola C

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Scope — Legislation not providing a compensation scheme for victims of violent intentional crime committed in national territory ensuring fair and appropriate compensation to all victims of violent crimes.

Operative part of the order

The European Court of Justice clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question put by the Tribunale ordinario di Firenze (Italy).


(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case T-72/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, transport company, waterway transport








C_2014102EN.01003701.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/37





Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
(Case T-72/14)
2014/C 102/58
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action admissible;










—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;










—


Vary the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;










—


Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of word mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ for services in Class 37 (No 1 092 478)

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Incorrect finding that the disputed mark had not acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services covered
Case C-462/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
Date: 2014-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: marketing standard, medicinal product, patent








C_2014078EN.01000202.xml










15.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE v Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
(Case C-462/13)
2014/C 78/03
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Polimeles Protodikio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Warner-Lambert Company LLC and Pfizer Ellas AE

Defendant: Minerva Farmakeftiki AE
The Court (Third Chamber) ruled by reasoned order of 30 January 2014.