do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-24/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, staff assessment








C_2014175EN.01005502.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/55





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
(Case F-24/14)
2014/C 175/79
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report covering the period from 1st October 2011 to 31st December 2012 and claim for damages.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the appraisal report issued to the applicant in respect of the period from 1st October 2011 to 31st December 2012 as finalized and signed by the Reporting Officer;










—


Order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation at the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of 500 Euro — to the applicant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by him as a result of the contested Appraisal Report;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Case C-133/14: Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Mayotte, derogation from EU law, legal basis, peripheral region








C_2014175EN.01002501.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/25





Action brought on 21 March — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-133/14)
2014/C 175/31
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Directive 2013/64/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Council Directives 91/271/EEC and 1999/74/EC, and Directives 2000/60/EC, 2006/7/EC, 2006/25/EC and 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (1);










—


Maintain the effects of Directive 2013/64/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/64/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Articles 43(2), 114, 153(2), 168 and 192(1) TFEU.
It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty, and by the historical origins of that article.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 355, p. 8.
Case T-186/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, sport, trade-mark law








C_2014142EN.01005302.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/53





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Atlantic Multipower Germany v OHIM — Nutrichem Diät + Pharma (NOxtreme)
(Case T-186/14)
2014/C 142/68
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Atlantic Multipower Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH (Roth, Germany)

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 29 January 2014 in Case R 764/2013-4;










—


Annul the decision of the Cancellation Division of 12 April 2013 (filing No: 6333C);










—


Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘NOxtreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 10 177 889

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Nutrichem Diät + Pharma GmbH

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the national and Community figurative marks, including the word element ‘X-TREME’, for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 32

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 57(2) and (3) in conjunction with Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 18 March 2014 in the proceedings concerning Otto Kaufmann AG (Case E-9/14)
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: access to information, award of contract, freedom to provide services, legal person, penalty








C_2014274EN.01000401.xml










21.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/4





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Fürstliches Landgericht dated 18 March 2014 in the proceedings concerning Otto Kaufmann AG
(Case E-9/14)
(2014/C 274/04)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 18 March 2014 from Fürstliches Landgericht (Princely Court of Justice, Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2014, for an Advisory Opinion in the proceedings concerning Otto Kaufmann AG, on the following question:






—


Does the EEA Agreement, in particular the provisions on the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment and/or individual acts of secondary law (for example, Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts or Directive 2006/123/EC on services in the internal market, which have both been incorporated into EEA law), require that where national law allows for legal persons to be convicted by a criminal court those convictions must also be clearly recorded, for example, in a criminal record?
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, advertising, aid to agriculture, control of State aid








C_2014083EN.01000701.xml










21.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/7





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)
(2014/C 83/02)







Date of adoption of the decision


23.01.2014




Reference number of State Aid


SA.37827 (2013/N)




Member State


Ireland




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Advertising Activities By Bord Bia (Irish Food Board)




Legal basis


An Bord Bia Acts 1994-2004




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Advertising (AGRI)




Form of aid


Other




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 18 (in millions)
Annual budget: EUR 6 (in millions)




Intensity


100 %




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2016




Economic sectors


Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities




Name and address of the granting authority







Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food




Kildare street, Dublin 2








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
Case T-191/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: CCT duties, agricultural product, industrial product, suspension of customs duties








C_2014151EN.01003101.xml










19.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/31





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — Lubrizol France v Council
(Case T-191/14)
2014/C 151/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor and B. Hartnett, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare the appeal admissible;










—


Annul Articles 1 and 4 of the Council Regulation (EU) 1387/2013 (1) of 17th December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Council Regulation (EU) 1344/20111 to the extent that it deprived the applicant of its rights to the entitlement of the benefit of three duty suspensions under former TARIC Codes 2918.2900.80, 3811.2900.10 and 3811.9000.30 on the grounds that it contains manifest errors in law and substance and was also adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements and safeguards;










—


Order the defendant and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses of the procedure.





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 that the defendant committed manifest errors in law and substance when determining that the applicable conditions were satisfied for terminating the three autonomous duty suspensions by failing to properly apply the test for establishing the existence of sufficient quantities of similar or substitutable quantities of products made in the European Union as well as the criterion of identical, equivalent or substitute products.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that that the defendant breached essential procedural requirements and safeguards put in place to ensure that the procedural rules, requiring opposing companies to reply within due time and also to prevent misleading and inaccurate information being provided in objections to the continuation of autonomous duty suspension, are properly applied and implemented.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201)
Case C-134/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Mayotte, derogation from EU law, legal basis, peripheral region








C_2014175EN.01002601.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/26





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-134/14)
2014/C 175/32
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Directive 2013/62/EU of 17 December 2013 amending Directive 2010/18/EU implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union (1);










—


Maintain the effects of Directive 2013/62/EU until such time as a new directive founded on an appropriate legal basis enters into effect;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission seeks the annulment of Directive 2013/62/EU, which the Council adopted on the legal basis of Article 349 TFEU.
The Commission alleges that the Council adopted that directive when it had proposed to base that act on a sectoral legal basis, namely Article 155(2) TFEU.
It considers that, in accordance with the purpose and aim of the contested directive, Article 349 TFEU cannot validly be used as a legal basis. Article 349 TFEU only applies when derogating from the principle of the application of primary law to the outermost regions, as established in Article 355(1) TFEU. However, the directive in question, if it is not to derogate from the Treaties, only adapts the secondary law in order to respond to the situation created by the change in status of Mayotte. That interpretation is supported not only by the wording of Article 349 TFEU, but also by the system of legal bases of the Treaty and by the historical origins of that article.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 353, p. 7.
Call for proposals 2013 — EAC/S11/13 — Erasmus+ programme — Prolongation of deadline for submission of applications (Key Action 1 — Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth) ( OJ C 362, 12.12.2013 )
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, cooperation in the field of education, invitation to tender, student mobility








C_2014082EN.01000501.xml










21.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/5





Call for proposals 2013 — EAC/S11/13 — Erasmus+ programme
Prolongation of deadline for submission of applications (Key Action 1 — Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth)
(Official Journal of the European Union C 362 of 12 December 2013)
2014/C 82/05
Due to technical problems encountered by applicants, the deadline for submission of applications for ‘Key Action 1 — Mobility of individuals in the field of education, training and youth’ of 17 March 2014 (point 6 of the call) has been prolonged until 24 March 2014, 12.00 (noon), Brussels time.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.7183 — Kendrick/Topaz/RPIF)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aircraft, broadcasting, catering industry, economic concentration, merger control, mobile phone, petroleum product, real property, retail selling, wholesale selling








C_2014082EN.01000101.xml










21.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.7183 — Kendrick/Topaz/RPIF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 82/01
On 11 March 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 (1). 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 32014M7183. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-132/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Mayotte, common fisheries policy, derogation from EU law, economic situation, legal basis, public health, social situation








C_2014175EN.01002402.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/24





Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-132/14)
2014/C 175/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: I. Liukkonen and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1385/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Council Regulations (EC) No 850/98 and (EC) No 1224/2009, and Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009, (EU) No 1379/2013 and (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, following the amendment of the status of Mayotte with regard to the European Union; (1)











—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No 1385/2013 which the Council adopted on the basis of Article 349 TFEU.
The Parliament contests the choice of legal basis operated by the Council as Article 349 TFEU cannot provide a legal basis for all the measures adopted, but only some of them consisting of derogations from the application of EU law to Mayotte. The contested regulation also implements measures which fall within the areas of the common fisheries policy and the protection of public health, without those measures being based on the structural social and economic situation specific to Mayotte.
In the opinion of the Parliament, the act in question should therefore have been adopted on the basis of Articles 43(2), 168(4)(b) and 349 TFEU jointly, and not on the basis of Article 349 alone.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 354, p. 86
Case C-131/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014  — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs fraud, import licence, tariff quota








C_2014194EN.01001101.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 21 March 2014 — Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino v Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno
(Case C-131/14)
2014/C 194/13
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Malvino Cervati, Società Malvi Sas di Cervati Malvino

Respondents: Agenzia delle Dogane, Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

Question referred

On a proper construction of Regulations No 1047/2001 (1) and No 2988/95, (2) is conduct such as that engaged in by Community operator A (Malvi sas) prohibited, and does it constitute an abuse of law and conduct designed to evade tax, where Community operator A (Malvi sas) — a company which does not hold an import licence or which has exhausted its own quota share — purchases certain consignments of goods from another Community operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which in turn has purchased them from a third-country supplier (Bananaservice srl), the goods being transferred as foreign stocks to another Community operator C (L’Olivo Maria) — a company which holds a licence under the quota because it meets the requisite criteria — which, without transferring its own licence, releases the goods for free circulation in the European Union in order to transfer them, after customs clearance and in return for appropriate remuneration, lower than the specific duty for imports outside the quota, to operator B (Tonini Roberto & C sas), which finally sells them to operator A (Malvi sas)?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1047/2001 of 30 May 2001 introducing a system of import licences and certificates of origin and establishing the method for managing tariff quotas for garlic imported from third countries (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 35).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).
Case T-81/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2014  — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra) (Community trade mark  — Application for Community word mark BigXtra  — Absolute ground for refusal  — No distinctive character  — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2014142EN.01003401.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/34





Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2014 — FTI Touristik v OHIM (BigXtra)
(Case T-81/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark BigXtra - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 142/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: FTI Touristik GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by A. Parr, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (case R 2521/2011-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign BigXtra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.