do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-196/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014  — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, official document, public debt, redemption








C_2014194EN.01001702.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Horst Hoeck v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-196/14)
2014/C 194/22
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Aachen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Horst Hoeck

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant seeks interest from the defendant for the period 2011/2012 in respect of bonds (government bonds) — issued by the defendant and purchased by the applicant in July 2011 — which were the subject-matter of the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012 to, among others, the applicant, and which the applicant rejected, with the result that the defendant none the less exchanged the bonds/government bonds held by the applicant for new ones?










2.


Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters to be interpreted as precluding entirely an action brought against the Hellenic Republic as defendant and instituted before the Landgericht Aachen, by which the applicant, as an alternative avenue of recourse, seeks payment from the defendant amounting to the nominal value of its bonds/government bonds purchased by the applicant, including unpaid interest, by reason of the forced exchange described in Question 1?










3.


Are the main proceedings before the Landgericht Aachen [in Case] 12 O 177/13 to be assigned to civil or commercial law, with the result that Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters are applicable?










4.


Alternatively, does the case concern an administrative matter or a matter of State liability, to which the provisions cited in Questions 1, 2 and 3 are not applicable?






(1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.
Case F-36/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, provision of services, retirement conditions








C_2014292EN.01006001.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/60





Action brought on 18 April 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-36/14)
2014/C 292/77
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission decisions, firstly, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, secondly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 28 March 2014, together with the decision of the Director-General of DG ENTR of 7 April 2014, rejecting the application for extension of the applicant’s service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 1 June 2014;










—


Remedy the losses which have resulted or may result from the contested decisions;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, financial services, insurance company








C_2015126EN.01000101.xml










18.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 126/1





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 126/01)







Date of adoption of the decision


16.10.2014


 




Aid number


SA.36262 (2014/N)




Member State


Ireland




Region


—


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Restructuring and stabilisation scheme for the Credit Union Sector in Ireland




Legal basis


Credit Union Bill 2012




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Restructuring firms in difficulty




Form of aid


Other forms of equity intervention — Recapitalisation




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 280 (in millions)




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


15.10.2014 - 1.4.2015




Economic sectors


FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE ACTIVITIES




Name and address of the granting authority







Department of Finance




Government Buildings




Upper Merrion Street




Dublin 2




IRELAND








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-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014  — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2014194EN.01003101.xml










24.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/31





Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
(Case T-254/14)
2014/C 194/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd. (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Hirschel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)

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 29 January 2014 in case R 2035/2012-1 and allow the applicant’s trade mark applied for;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘NEW MAX’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  474

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘MAX’, for services in Class 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and complete rejection of the trade mark applied for

Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue
Case C-195/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014  — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, food safety, foodstuff, labelling








C_2014245EN.01000301.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2014 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-195/14)
2014/C 245/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant: Teekanne GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Is it permissible for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs to give the impression, by means of their appearance, description or pictorial representation, that a particular ingredient is present, even though that ingredient is not in fact present and this is apparent solely from the list of ingredients provided for under Article 3(1)(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1)?


(1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), as most recently amended by Council Directive 2013/20/EU of 13 May 2013 adapting certain directives in the field of food safety, veterinary and phytosanitary policy, by reason of the accession of the Republic of Croatia (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 234).
Case C-197/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2014  — T.A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, conflict of jurisdiction, social security








C_2014223EN.01000501.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2014 — T.A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-197/14)
2014/C 223/06
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T.A. van Dijk

Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1)


Is the Hoge Raad, as the highest national court, required, because of a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a lower national court, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or must it await the answer to that question referred by the lower national court, even if it takes the view that the correct application of EU law on the matter to be decided by it is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to how that question must be answered?










2)


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, are the Netherlands authorities in the area of social security then bound by an E 101 certificate issued by the authorities of another Member State, even where the case involves a Rhine boatman, with the result that the rules on the applicable legislation in Regulation No 1408/71, (1) to which that certificate refers, are not applicable pursuant to Article 7(2)(a) of that regulation?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
Case T-541/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)
Date: 2014-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2014303EN.01005601.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/56





Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris v OHIM — Vicente Gandía Pla (ILLIRIA)
(Case T-541/14)
2014/C 303/67
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Antica Azienda Agricola Vitivinicola Dei Conti Leone De Castris Srl (Salice Salentino, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vicente Gandía Pla SA (Chiva, Spain)

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 21 May 2014 given in Case R 917/2013-4;










—


Award the applicant the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘ILLIRIA’ for ‘wines’ in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 99  033

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No. 8 2 99  653

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition

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