do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-377/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014  — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines — Choice of legal basis — Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU — Readmission of third-country nationals — Transport — Environment — Development cooperation)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Philippines, cooperation agreement (EU), framework agreement, return migration








C_2014282EN.01000301.xml










25.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/3





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 June 2014 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-377/12) (1)

((Action for annulment - Council Decision 2012/272/EU on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of the Philippines - Choice of legal basis - Articles 79 TFEU, 91 TFEU, 100 TFEU, 191 TFEU and 209 TFEU - Readmission of third-country nationals - Transport - Environment - Development cooperation))
2014/C 282/04
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt, G. Valero Jordana and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, D. Hadroušek and E. Ruffer, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and A. Carroll, Barrister), Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Khala and G. Papagianni, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by A. Robinson, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson and M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Annuls Council Decision 2012/272/EU of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part, in so far as the Council of the European Union added thereto the legal bases relating to readmission of third-country nationals, transport and the environment;










2)


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;










3)


Orders the Czech Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Austria and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.
Case C-287/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék lodged on 11 June 2014  — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi Törvényszék
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, damages, drivers, indemnification, infringement of EU law, transport company








C_2014303EN.01001802.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Törvényszék lodged on 11 June 2014 — Eurospeed Ltd v Szegedi Törvényszék
(Case C-287/14)
2014/C 303/24
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eurospeed Ltd

Defendant: Szegedi Törvényszék

Questions referred







1.


Does the fact that a Member State is liable to make good damage resulting from a breach of EU law preclude the application of rules on liability when ruling on a claim for damages brought on that basis against the State body actually responsible for the breach?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does Article 10(3) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC (1) preclude the adoption of a national law by the Member State which, in the event of breach of the requirements laid down by the Regulation, provides for the imposition of a penalty on the driver who actually committed the breach in addition to or instead of the transport company?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, must it be considered that a decision of a national administrative court which, instead of being based on Article 10(3) of Regulation No 561/2006, is based on national law contrary to that provision, is manifestly in breach of Union law?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014176EN.01000201.xml










11.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 June 2014
2014/C 176/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3608




JPY


Japanese yen


139,39




DKK


Danish krone


7,4619




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80985




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0795




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2193




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0997




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,451




HUF


Hungarian forint


303,34




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0997




RON


Romanian leu


4,3879




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8325




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4545




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4861




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5483




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5990




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7012




KRW


South Korean won


1 382,37




ZAR


South African rand


14,4144




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4932




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5790




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 027,08




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3518




PHP


Philippine peso


59,326




RUB


Russian rouble


46,6685




THB


Thai baht


44,124




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0488




MXN


Mexican peso


17,5951




INR


Indian rupee


80,4050






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-286/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014  — European Parliament v European Commission
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, common transport policy, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2014253EN.01002102.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/21





Action brought on 11 June 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission
(Case C-286/14)
2014/C 253/28
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 (1) of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action the Parliament raises a single plea, alleging that the Commission exceeded the powers conferred on it in Article 21(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 (2). The contested regulation amends Annex I of the basic act, adding a new Part VI, which concerns transport funding priorities of multiannual and annual work programmes. According to the Parliament, the Commission thus exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation in adopting a delegated act which ‘modifies’ that basic regulation, instead of merely ‘completing’ it, as required of it by Article 21(3).


(1)  OJ 2014 L 80, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 348, p. 129.
Case C-285/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 June 2014  — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, excise duty, patents licence, tax harmonisation








C_2014261EN.01001601.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 June 2014 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA
(Case C-285/14)
2014/C 261/23
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne

Respondent: Brasserie Bouquet SA

Question referred

Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘operate under licence’ refers exclusively to operation under a licence to exploit a patent or trade mark, or can that provision be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘operate under licence’ refers to operation in accordance with a production process belonging to a third party and authorised by that party?


(1)  OJ L 316, p. 21.
Case T-281/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark metabiarex — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001401.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/14





Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — meta Fackler Arzneimittel (METABIOMAX)
(Case T-281/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX - Earlier national word mark metabiarex - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 245/19
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH (Springe, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2013 (Case R 2022/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between meta Fackler Arzneimittel GmbH and Ms Sofia Golam

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.
Case T-62/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Golam v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX — Earlier national word mark BIOMAX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001301.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/13





Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)
(Case T-62/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX - Earlier national word mark BIOMAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 245/17
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Ballas and N. Prentoulis, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 2089/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Ms Sofia Golam

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Case T-420/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval — Vinhos (Wine in Black)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2014303EN.01003301.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/33





Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval — Vinhos (Wine in Black)
(Case T-420/14)
2014/C 303/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Fully set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1601/2013-1;










—


Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Wine in Black’ for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 49  071

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘NOVAL BLACK’ for goods in class 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC ( OJ L 158, 27.5.2014 )
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: audit, auditing, consolidated account, financial control, management audit, market supervision, services of general interest








L_2014170EN.01006601.xml










11.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 170/66







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 158 of 27 May 2014
)


On page 86, Article 5(1)(b):
for:







‘(b)


the financial year immediately preceding the period referred to in point (a) in relation to the services listed in point (g) of the second subparagraph.’,





read:







‘(b)


the financial year immediately preceding the period referred to in point (a) in relation to the services listed in point (e) of the second subparagraph.’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014176EN.01000301.xml










11.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/3





Euro exchange rates (1)

10 June 2014
2014/C 176/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3547




JPY


Japanese yen


138,63




DKK


Danish krone


7,4611




GBP


Pound sterling


0,80750




SEK


Swedish krona


9,0686




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2188




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,0890




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,451




HUF


Hungarian forint


304,13




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1058




RON


Romanian leu


4,3892




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8274




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4458




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4784




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,5011




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5909




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6938




KRW


South Korean won


1 378,02




ZAR


South African rand


14,5132




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4329




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5780




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 994,24




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,3452




PHP


Philippine peso


59,210




RUB


Russian rouble


46,5798




THB


Thai baht


44,030




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0207




MXN


Mexican peso


17,6694




INR


Indian rupee


80,2160






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-401/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark JUNGBORN — Earlier national word mark BORN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014245EN.01001101.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/11





Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Klingel v OHIM — Develey (JUNGBORN)
(Case T-401/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark JUNGBORN - Earlier national word mark BORN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 245/14
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Zeiher, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG (Unterhaching, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2012 (Case R 936/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Develey Holding GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG and Robert Klingel OHG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Robert Klingel OHG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.
Case T-4/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014  — Communicaid Group Ltd v European Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of language-training services for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels — Rejection of tenders submitted by the applicant — Principle of transparency — Non-discrimination — Equal treatment — Article 94 of the Financial Regulation — Selection criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Award criteria — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2014-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, language teaching, provision of services, services contract








C_2014245EN.01001201.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/12





Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Communicaid Group Ltd v European Commission
(Case T-4/13) (1)

((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of language-training services for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels - Rejection of tenders submitted by the applicant - Principle of transparency - Non-discrimination - Equal treatment - Article 94 of the Financial Regulation - Selection criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Award criteria - Manifest error of assessment))
2014/C 245/16
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Communicaid Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Brennan, Solicitor, F. Randolph QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment, in whole or in part, of the decisions by which the Commission refused to rank Communicaid Group Ltd in first place for Lots 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 9 of the Call for Tenders HR/R3/PR/2012/002 relating to framework agreements for the provision of language training for staff of the institutions, bodies and agencies of the European Union in Brussels (Belgium)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Communicaid Group Ltd to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.