do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-556/14 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 2014 by Victor Navarro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13 Navarro v Commission
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: capacity to contract, damages, indemnification, judicial review, servant (EU)








C_2014351EN.01001602.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/16





Appeal brought on 28 July 2014 by Victor Navarro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13 Navarro v Commission

(Case T-556/14 P)
2014/C 351/20
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Victor Navarro (Sterrebeek, Belgium) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 May 2014 in Case F-46/13;










—


Consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly:






—


Annul the decision of the European Commission, as the authority empowered to conclude contracts, of 4 October 2012, not to recruit the appellant as an auxiliary member of the contractual staff in function group II;










—


In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of 7 February 2013 rejecting the claim brought by the appellant on 19 October 2012;










—


Compensate his material losses;










—


Award him the sum fixed ex aequo et bono and provisionally at EUR 50  000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;










—


Order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those of the present appeal.









Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the limits of the judicial review of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) since it substituted its own assessment for that of the administration.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST considered wrongly that, under Article 3(2) of Annex IV to the General Implementing Provisions of 2 March 2011 (1), professional experience must be properly circumstantiated and be related to one of the Commission’s areas of activity.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a distortion of the facts of the case, since the CST stated, in the judgment under appeal, that the appellant had not supplied a description of the tasks carried out for Continental Airlines Inc. and, accordingly, had not proved that his experience was ‘appropriate’ to the carrying out of secretarial duties.






(1)  General Provisions of 2 March 2011 for implementing Article 79(2) of the CEOS, governing the conditions of employment of contract staff employed by the Commission under the terms of Articles 3a and 3b of the said Conditions, published in Administrative Notices No 33-2011.
Case T-564/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2014380EN.01001501.xml










27.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 380/15





Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen v OHIM
(Case T-564/14)
2014/C 380/20
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ahmed Mohamed Saleh Baeshen & Co. (Jeddah, Saudi Arabia) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

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 Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 May 2014 given in Case R 687/2014-2;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘TEAVANA’ for services in Class 35 — Community trade mark No 4 0 98  588

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Teavana Corporation

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the CTM proprietor’s right in respect of Community trade mark No 4 0 98  588 in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal as inadmissible

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 51(1)(a), 59 and 75 CTMR.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014245EN.01000101.xml










28.7.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/1





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

2014/C 245/01

Last publication


OJ C 235, 21.7.2014


Past publications


OJ C 223, 14.7.2014


OJ C 212, 7.7.2014


OJ C 202, 30.6.2014


OJ C 194, 24.6.2014


OJ C 184, 16.6.2014


OJ C 175, 10.6.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-363/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014  — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Europol, association agreement, international organisation, legal basis, legislative procedure, third country








C_2014329EN.01001001.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/10





Action brought on 28 July 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-363/14)
2014/C 329/12
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/269/EU of 6 May 2014 amending Decision 2009/935/JHA as regards the list of third States and organisations with which Europol shall conclude agreements (1)











—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the European Parliament raises three pleas in law.
Firstly, the European Parliament contests the use by the Council of an incorrect decision-making procedure for the adoption of Decision 2014/269/EU. The Parliament deduces therefrom that the Council has committed not only a breach of the Treaties but also a breach of essential procedural requirements.
Secondly, the European Parliament complains of the Council’s use either of a legal basis repealed by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon or of a secondary legal basis, which is unlawful pursuant to the case-law of the Court of Justice.
Lastly, in the view of the Parliament, the list of third States and organisations with which Europol is to conclude agreements is a legislative matter. It should be considered by the EU legislature, since it is an essential element of a regulated area. In consequence, the legal basis and procedure used by the Council are legally incorrect.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 138, p. 104.
Case C-365/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, delegation of power, transport company








C_2014329EN.01001002.xml










22.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-365/14)
2014/C 329/13
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?






(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.
Case C-366/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár Kft.
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2014351EN.01000601.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Herrenknecht AG v Hév-Sugár Kft.
(Case C-366/14)
2014/C 351/07
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapesti XX., XXI. És XXIII. Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Herrenknecht AG

Defendant: Hév-Sugár Kft.

Questions referred







1.


How should Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1), relating to the court which is to have exclusive jurisdiction, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the contracting parties which are in dispute have attributed jurisdiction to hear disputes relating to the contract to various courts? Furthermore, is the applicant free to choose from among the courts selected the forum which has exclusive jurisdiction and those which have alternative jurisdiction and can the exclusive jurisdiction of the court which is hearing the case be inferred accordingly?










2.


How should Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention (2), relating to the substantive law which is applicable in the event the contract is to be enforced, be interpreted where, in the terms and conditions of the contract, the parties have designated the laws of several Member States as relevant to the contract and, in those circumstances, which of those is the applicable law?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(2)  Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1).
Case C-364/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, transport company, transport regulations








C_2014339EN.01001402.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-364/14)
2014/C 339/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Annette Lorch, Kurt Lorch

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must the extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) relate directly to the booked flight?










2.


If the first question is to be answered in the negative, how many earlier flights involving the aircraft to be used for the scheduled flight are relevant to the existence of an extraordinary circumstance? Is there a time-limit to the consideration of extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights? If so, how is that time-limit to be calculated?










3.


If extraordinary circumstances which occur during earlier flights are also relevant to a later flight, must the reasonable measures to be taken by the operating air carrier, in accordance with Article 5(3) of the regulation, relate only to preventing the extraordinary circumstance or also to avoiding a long delay?






(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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-562/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014351EN.01001801.xml










6.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/18





Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
(Case T-562/14)
2014/C 351/22
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 given in Case R 762/2013-2.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘YOO’ for the services in Classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 487 924

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: National and International trade mark registration for the word mark ‘YO’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.
Case T-560/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding a.o. v Parliament and Council
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biodiversity, derogation from EU law, legal basis, plant variety right, principle of proportionality








C_2014388EN.01001901.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/19





Action brought on 28 July 2014 — ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding a.o. v Parliament and Council
(Case T-560/14)
2014/C 388/23
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ABZ Aardbeien Uit Zaad Holding BV (Hoorn NH, Netherlands); Agriom BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands); Agrisemen BV (Ellewoutsdijk, Netherlands); Anthura BV (Bleiswijk, Netherlands); Barenbrug Holding BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands); De Bolster BV (Epe, Netherlands); Evanthia BV (Hoek van Holland, Netherlands); Gebr. Vletter & Den Haan VOF (Rijnsburg, Netherlands); Hilverda Kooij BV (Aalsmeer, Netherlands); Holland-Select BV (Andijk, Netherlands); Könst Breeding BV (Nieuwveen, Netherlands); Koninklijke Van Zanten BV (Hillegom, Netherlands); Kweek- en Researchbedrijf Agirco BV (Emmeloord, Netherlands); Kwekerij de Wester-Bouwing BV (Rossum, Netherlands); Limgroup BV (Horst aan de Maas, Netherlands); and Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Het Idee BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the action in annulment admissible;










—


annul Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilisation in the Union (OJ L 150, p. 59); and










—


order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-559/14 Ackermann Saatzucht a.o. v Parliament and Council.
Case T-557/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014  — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)
Date: 2014-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014339EN.01002501.xml










29.9.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/25





Action brought on 28 July 2014 — BrandGroup v OHIM — Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele (SPEZOOMIX)
(Case T-557/14)
2014/C 339/30
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: BrandGroup GmbH (Bechtsrieth, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG (Augsburg, 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 15 May 2014 in Case R 941/2013-1;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and the Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: BrandGroup GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPEZOOMIX’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 13  617

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Brauerei S. Riegele, Inh. Riegele KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: International and Community word marks ‘Spezi’, international and Community figurative marks containing the word ‘Spezi’, and the national word mark ‘Ein Spezi muß dabei sein’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection in its entirety of the mark applied for

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 78(5) of Regulation No 207/2009