do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision of 14 July 2014 adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2014
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: amending budget, budgetary expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU)








C_2014227EN.01000301.xml










17.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/3





COUNCIL DECISION
of 14 July 2014
adopting the Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2014
2014/C 227/02
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (1) and in particular Article 41 thereof,
Whereas:














HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council’s position on draft amending budget No 2 of the European Union for the financial year 2014 was adopted on 14 July 2014.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council’s website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 14 July 2014.


For the Council


The President

M. MARTINA




(1)  OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 51, 20.2.2014, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 111, 15.4.2014, p. 96 and in OJ L 124, 25.4.2014, p. 30.
Case F-65/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — ZZ v EEAS
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, promotion








C_2014380EN.01002601.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/26





Action brought on 14 July 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
(Case F-65/14)
2014/C 380/33
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: EEAS

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions to refuse to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise even though he was included in the list of officials eligible for promotion.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions of 9 October and of 14 October 2013 refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise;










—


If necessary, annul the decision of 16 April 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


Order the EEAS to pay all the costs.
Case C-338/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, customers, damages, indemnification, sales representative, work contract








C_2014339EN.01000801.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Quenon K. SPRL v Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA
(Case C-338/14)
2014/C 339/08
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Quenon K. SPRL

Defendants: Citibank Belgium SA, Metlife Insurance SA

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is authorised to provide that after the termination of the contract, the commercial agent has the right to an indemnity for customers of which the amount must not be greater than the amount of remuneration for one year, and that, if that amount does not cover the whole of the loss actually suffered, damages in the sum of the difference between the amount of loss actually suffered and the amount of that indemnity?










2)


More specifically, must Article 17(2)(c) of [Directive 86/653] be interpreted as making the award of damages additional to the indemnity for customers conditional upon the existence of a breach of contract or breach of a quasi-delictual duty of care by the principal which was the cause of the losses claimed, and to the existence of loss which is distinct from that compensated for by the lump sum of the indemnity for customers?










3)


If the answer to the latter question is yes, must the breach be something other than the unilateral termination of the contract, such as, for example, giving insufficient notice, the grant of insufficient compensation in respect of notice and customers, the existence of serious reasons on the part of the principal, a breach of the right to terminate the contract or any other types of breaches of, in particular, market practice?






(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.
Case C-339/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, driving licence, transport regulations








C_2014372EN.01000202.xml










20.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Andreas Wittmann
(Case C-339/14)
2014/C 372/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Andreas Wittmann

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg

Question referred

Must Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) be interpreted as meaning that a situation where a driving licence has not been withdrawn from the driver of a vehicle only because his driving licence was withdrawn from him previously and he therefore no longer has a driving licence, and where, at the same time, an order is made to the effect that that person is not in any event to be issued with a new driving licence for a given period of time, is equivalent to the withdrawal of a driving licence?


(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences; OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014303EN.01005201.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/52





Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
(Case T-526/14)
2014/C 303/61
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

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 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59  404

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2014223EN.01000101.xml










14.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

2014/C 223/01

Last publication


OJ C 212, 7.7.2014


Past publications


OJ C 202, 30.6.2014


OJ C 194, 24.6.2014


OJ C 184, 16.6.2014


OJ C 175, 10.6.2014


OJ C 159, 26.5.2014


OJ C 151, 19.5.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-204/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014  — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark VIAVITA — Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA — No genuine use of earlier marks — Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01003402.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/34





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik v OHIM — Viavita (VIAVITA)
(Case T-204/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark VIAVITA - Earlier national word mark VILA VITA PARC and figurative mark VILA VITA - No genuine use of earlier marks - Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2014/C 292/41
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Schoenen and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Viavita (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 (Case R 419/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH and Viavita.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vila Vita Hotel und Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Viavita.






(1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.
Case T-5/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014  — BSH v OHIM (Wash & Coffee) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Wash & Coffee — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Ex officio examination of the facts — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014292EN.01003201.xml










1.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 292/32





Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — BSH v OHIM (Wash & Coffee)
(Case T-5/12) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Wash & Coffee - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Ex officio examination of the facts - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
2014/C 292/38
Language of the case: German

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) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2011 (Case R 992/2011-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Wash & Coffee as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
Case T-356/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2014  — Lebedef v Commission (Appeals — Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, disciplinary proceedings, rights of the defence








C_2014315EN.01006101.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/61





Order of the General Court of 14 July 2014 — Lebedef v Commission
(Case T-356/13 P) (1)

((Appeals - Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading - Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded))
2014/C 315/102
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 in Lebedef v Commission (F 56/11, RecFP, EU:F:2013:49), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


M. Giorgio Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.
Case C-337/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014  — Elvira Mandl, Helmut Mandl v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2014315EN.01004201.xml










15.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/42





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2014 — Elvira Mandl, Helmut Mandl v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-337/14)
2014/C 315/68
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Elvira Mandl, Helmut Mandl

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Question referred

Is there an obligation on an airline company which wishes to rely on the possibility of exemption in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) to set out and prove that it took all reasonable measures to avoid the foreseeable consequences of an extraordinary circumstance in the form of cancellation or considerable delay or that no such reasonable measures were available to it?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-341/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014  — J. Harmsen; other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, domestic market, freedom to provide services, market access, prostitution, right of establishment








C_2014339EN.01000901.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2014 — J. Harmsen; other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam
(Case C-341/14)
2014/C 339/10
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: J. Harmsen

Other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam

Questions referred







1.


Does Chapter III of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36) apply to purely internal situations, or is the assessment of the question as to whether that chapter applies subject to the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in purely internal situations?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is that the case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the Treaty provisions on freedom of establishment and the free movement of services in a purely internal situation applies to the assessment of the question as to whether Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 is applicable:






(a)


Should the national courts apply the provisions laid down in Chapter III of Directive 2006/123 in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the service provider has not established himself on a cross-border basis and does not offer services on a cross-border basis, but nevertheless relies on those provisions?










(b)


Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the operator provides services primarily to self-employed prostitutes from Member States other than the Netherlands?










(c)


In order to answer that question, is it necessary to determine whether undertakings established in other Member States have shown or will show genuine interest in establishing a window prostitution business in Amsterdam?














3.


To the extent to which the operator is entitled to rely on the provisions of Chapter III of Directive 2006/123, does Article 10(2)(c) of that directive preclude a measure such as that at issue here, whereby an operator of window prostitution businesses is allowed to rent out rooms in shifts only to prostitutes who are able to make themselves understood by the operator in a language which he understands?
Case T-523/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, health care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014329EN.01002101.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/21





Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Squeeze Life v OHIM — Evolution Fresh (SQUEEZE LIFE)
(Case T-523/14)
2014/C 329/29
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Squeeze Life, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Evolution Fresh, Inc. (San Bernardino, United States)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul and declare inapplicable the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 and, consequently, declare that:






—


the party that brought an appeal before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013 was Squeeze Life, S.L., and not the applicant for a Community trade mark, Evolution Fresh, Inc.;










—


as a consequence of the above, declare final the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 20 December 2013, and therefore, declare Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ rejected in respect of the goods in Class 32 and, in part, the services in Class 35;














—


stay conversion procedure No 8311048, which is pending before the ‘Division of Recordals’ of OHIM, until final judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, and remit the appropriate communication to the ‘Division of Recordals’ in order for it to stay the conversion proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Evolution Fresh, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 70  966

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word marks ‘ZUMIT SQUEEZE LIFE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 31, 32 and 35

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Took note of the withdrawal of the Community trade mark application and closed the appeal and opposition proceedings

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 108 et seq. of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-529/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)
Date: 2014-07-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014303EN.01005301.xml










8.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/53





Action brought on 14 July 2014 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Multi Win)
(Case T-529/14)
2014/C 303/63
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

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 April 2014 in Case R 1326/2013-1;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Multi Win’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 2 06  364

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No. 207/2009