do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-102/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Deutsche Post AG v OHIM
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, postal service, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014112EN.01005301.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/53





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Deutsche Post AG v OHIM
(Case T-102/14)
2014/C 112/68
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: K. Hamacher and C. Giersdorf, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PostNL Holding BV (Den Haag, Netherlands)

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 11 December 2013 in Case R 2108/2012 1;










—


order the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings, to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Deutsche Post AG

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TPG POST’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 20, 35, 38 and 39 (Community trade mark registration No 2 920 916)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘DP’, ‘POST’ and ‘Deutsche Post’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 39 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case F-13/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: family benefit, redemption, therapeutics








C_2014102EN.01004601.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/46





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-13/14)
2014/C 102/68
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for extension, for 2012/2013, of the prior authorisation granted for the reimbursement of the costs of speech therapy for the applicant’s son as part of the treatment of his serious illness.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 26 April 2013 rejecting the request for extension, for 2012/2013, of the reimbursement of the costs of speech therapy for the applicant’s son as part of the treatment of his serious illness;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Council Decision of 17 February 2014 appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bulgaria, Cedefop, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








C_2014051EN.01000901.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/9





COUNCIL DECISION
of 17 February 2014
appointing and replacing members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2014/C 51/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted to the Council by the Commission in the category of Employees' representatives,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 16 July 2012 (2), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2012 to 17 September 2015.










(2)


A member's seat is available for Bulgaria on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Employees' representatives,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The following person is hereby appointed as a member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of the term of office, which runs until 17 September 2015:







REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYEES' ORGANISATIONS:





BULGARIA


Ms Yuliya SIMEONOVA





Done at Brussels, 17 February 2014.


For the Council


The President

A. TSAFTARIS




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 228, 31.7.2012, p. 3.
Case T-116/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Bunge Argentina v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean








C_2014129EN.01003301.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/33






Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Bunge Argentina v Council
(Case T-116/14)
(2014/C 129/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bunge Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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








1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).












2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.












3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case T-112/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Molinos Río de la Plata v Council
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Argentina, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product, price disparity, soya bean, soya bean oil








C_2014112EN.01005502.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/55





Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Molinos Río de la Plata v Council
(Case T-112/14)
2014/C 112/72
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Molinos Río de la Plata SA (Buenos Aires, Argentine) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)
Case C-81/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2014  — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV; other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air quality, industrial pollution, organic chemical, prevention of pollution, solvent








C_2014142EN.01001702.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 17 February 2014 — Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV; other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland
(Case C-81/14)
2014/C 142/24
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Nannoka Vulcanus Industries BV

Other party: College van gedeputeerde staten van Gelderland

Questions referred







1.


Does it follow from Annex IIB to Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations that the operator of installations for which a constant solid content of product can be assumed and used to define the reference point for emission reductions, where substitutes containing little or no solvent are still under development, must be given a time extension for the implementation of its reduction scheme, in derogation from the time frame set out in that annex?




If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






2.


Is particular action on the part of the operator of the installation or authorisation from a competent authority required for the conferring of a time extension for the implementation of the reduction scheme provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 1999/13/EC?










3.


On the basis of which criteria can the length of the time extension provided for in Annex IIB to Directive 1999/13/EC be determined?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1.
Case T-123/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)
Date: 2014-02-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014129EN.01003401.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/34






Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)
(Case T-123/14)
(2014/C 129/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2013 given in Case R 314/2013-4;










—


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 ‘AquaPerfect’ for the goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 10 330 454
         

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 9 444 118 of the word mark ‘waterPerfect’ for goods in Class 7

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.