do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-1/10 RENV: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, dangerous substance, disclosure of information, health risk








C_2014315EN.01004801.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/48





Order of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
(Case T-1/10 RENV) (1)

((Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
2014/C 315/81
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium), and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented initially by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, and subsequently by R. Cana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, acting as Agent); and European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance fulfilling the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), pursuant to Article 59 of that regulation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).










3.


SNF shall pay the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Case T-207/13: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01002702.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/27





Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — 1872 Holdings v OHIM — Havana Club International (THE SPIRIT OF CUBA)
(Case T-207/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark THE SPIRIT OF CUBA - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 253/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: 1872 Holdings vof (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Havana Club International SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2013 (Case R 684/2012-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Havana Club International SA and 1872 Holdings vof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders 1872 Holdings vof to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
2014/413/EU: Council Decision of 24 June 2014 appointing an Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members








L_2014190EN.01008401.xml










28.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 190/84








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 24 June 2014
         
appointing an Austrian member of the European Economic and Social Committee

(2014/413/EU)



THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 302 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,


Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 13 September 2010 the Council adopted Decision 2010/570/EU, Euratom appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 (1).












(2)


A member's seat on the European Economic and Social Committee has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Gerfried GRUBER,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Andreas THURNER is hereby appointed as a member of the European Economic and Social Committee for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 20 September 2015.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 24 June 2014.


For the Council


The President

E. VENIZELOS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 251, 25.9.2010, p. 8.
Case C-302/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air conditioning, building, energy consumption, energy saving, environmental standard, heating, national implementing measure, thermal insulation








C_2014292EN.01001901.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/19





Action brought on 24 June 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-302/14)
2014/C 292/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought







—


declare that, as regards Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings (1), by failing to adopt, for some parts of its territory, the transposition provisions of the definitions in Article 2(2), (7) and (9) and the requirements laid down in Article 8(1), Article 9(1), Article 11(2) to (5), and Article 18 and Annex II or, in any event, by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 28(1) of the Directive;










—


impose upon the Kingdom of Belgium, under Article 260(3) of the TFEU, a daily penalty of EUR 42  178,50 with effect from delivery of the judgment of the Court and payable to the European Union’s own resources account, for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2010/31/EU expired on 9 July 2012.


(1)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.
Case T-467/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01006401.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/64





Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Fonditel Pensiones v Commission
(Case T-467/14)
2014/C 253/87
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Fonditel Pensiones, Entidad Gestora de Fondos de Pensiones, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case T-468/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, damages, research programme








C_2014292EN.01005001.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/50





Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Holistic Innovation Institute v Commission
(Case T-468/14)
2014/C 292/61
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Muñiz García, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should annul the decision to exclude the applicant from the eDIGIREGION project, order the applicant to be indemnified for the losses suffered, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 3 0 55  000, or in the alternative the amount determined by the judicial expert, together with the interest accruing in accordance with the expert’s report, and expressly order that this be paid by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action has been brought against the decision to refuse to allow the applicant — an undertaking engaged principally in telecommunications, R&D and consultancy services in telecommunications, research and innovation — to participate in the European eDIGIREGION project under the Seventh Framework Programme.
In this regard, the applicant states that it has participated in developing the proposal for the eDIGIREGION project since its creation, in close connection with other entities and held a number of meetings in Brussels and several audio conferences between July 2011 and January 2012, resulting in the formation of a European Consortium which submitted a proposal for an eDIGIREGION project (Realizing the Digital Agenda through Transnational Cooperation between Regions). The applicant is partner number 5 of the Consortium with a budget of EUR 4 91  400.00 and a contribution from the Commission of EUR 4 38  165 ,00. (14,61 % of the total requested).
In support of its action, the applicant claims that the arguments put forward by the European Commission are totally unjustified, as they infringe the main requirement necessary if the latter is to be able to decide to suspend the participation of an undertaking in a project which has been positively appraised; the arguments must be clear, unequivocal and properly substantiated.
Specifically, the applicant states that it is technically and operationally prepared to participate in the eDIGIREGION Consortium, it has sufficient financial capacity to take on its share of the co-financing, and it has sufficient experience in the management and administration of projects.
In this respect, the applicant considers that there is a manifest inconsistency between what the Director General signed in the text of the letter giving notice of the suspension of the participation in the project and the arguments set out in the Annex to that letter.
Case T-463/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Österreichische Post v Commission
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: application of EU law, award of contract, postal service, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2014303EN.01004401.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/44





Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Österreichische Post v Commission
(Case T-463/14)
2014/C 303/52
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s implementing decision in Case C(2014) 2093 in so far as Directive 2004/17/EC continues to apply to the award of contracts for postal services which are not mentioned in Article 1 of the implementing decision, exemption from which the applicant has requested under Article 30(6) of Directive 2004/17/EC;










—


in the alternative, in so far as partial annulment of the contested decision is, according to the Court, not admissible or possible, to annul the implementing decision in its entirety;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant claims that the contested decision, as regards the postal services not covered by Article 1 thereof, is unlawful under Article 263(2) TFEU because the Commission has infringed EU law by misapplying and misinterpreting Directive 2004/17/EC. The applicant claims, in essence, that the postal services which it provides are exposed to sufficient direct competition, so that the conditions for an exemption under Article 30(1) of Directive 2004/17 are met. The applicant also claims that the Commission misapplied the criteria and methods on market definition laid down by EU law and case-law.
Furthermore, the applicant alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements, as the Commission failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision.
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed general fundamental procedural rights, in that by failing to adequately address the applicant’s claims and evidence, it infringed the applicant’s right to be heard.
Case T-523/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Sani — Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014253EN.01002701.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/27





Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Rani Refreshments v OHIM — Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Sani)
(Case T-523/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Sani - Earlier Community figurative marks Hani or llani and RANI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 253/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rani Refreshments FZCO (Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: M. Chapple, Barrister)

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: Global-Invest Bartosz Turek (Poczesna, Poland)

Re:

Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 September 2012 (Case R 236/2012-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Aujan Industries Co. (S J C) and Global-Invest Bartosz Turek.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action.










2)


Orders Rani Refreshments FZCO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
Case T-273/12: Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014  — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2014253EN.01002501.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/25





Judgment of the General Court of 24 June 2014 — Unister v OHIM (Ab in den Urlaub)
(Case T-273/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Ab in den Urlaub - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absence of evidence of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 253/35
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Unister GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug and A. Kessler-Jensch, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 April 2012 (Case R 2150/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Ab in den Urlaub as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Unister GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.
Case T-469/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014  — Dordal v Commission
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, contract terms, control of State aid, division of powers, equal treatment, hire purchase, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, reimbursement of aid, tax system








C_2014253EN.01006402.xml










4.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 253/64





Action brought on 24 June 2014 — Dordal v Commission
(Case T-469/14)
2014/C 253/88
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Dordal, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case C-304/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 24 June 2014 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS
Date: 2014-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, custody, migration policy, removal








C_2014315EN.01003901.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/39





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 24 June 2014 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v CS
(Case C-304/14)
2014/C 315/62
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: CS

Questions referred







1.


Does European Union law, and in particular Article 20 TFEU, preclude a Member State from expelling from its territory to a non-Union country, a non-Union national who is the parent and primary carer of a child who is a citizen of that Member State (and, consequently, a citizen of the Union), where to do so would deprive the Union citizen child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of his or her rights as a European Union citizen?










2.


If the answer to Question (1) is ‘No’, in what circumstances would such an expulsion be permitted under European Union Law?










3.


If the answer to Question (1) is ‘No’, to what extent, if any, do Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2004/38/EC (1)(the ‘Citizens Directive’) inform the answer to Question (2)?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. OJ L 158, p. 77