do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-610/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014361EN.01002402.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/24





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)
(Case T-610/14)
2014/C 361/37
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 301/2014-4;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO ORGANIC’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 06  409

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations.
Case T-612/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Souruh v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01002501.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/25





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-612/14)
2014/C 361/38
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-599/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Souruh v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01001902.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/19





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-599/14)
2014/C 361/28
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
Case T-596/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01001802.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/18





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-596/14)
2014/C 361/26
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


In consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing acts in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-593/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, human rights, international sanctions








C_2014361EN.01001701.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/17





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-593/14)
2014/C 361/23
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)



(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-600/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01002001.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/20





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
(Case T-600/14)
2014/C 361/29
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;










—


consequently, order the European Union to pay full compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant, in the amount of EUR 48 8 8 29  000;










—


in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert to establish the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
Case C-381/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank, S.A.
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, consumer protection, principle of legal certainty, right to justice, rights of the defence, unfair terms of contract








C_2014388EN.01000301.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank, S.A.
(Case C-381/14)
2014/C 388/03
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jorge Sales Sinués

Defendant: Caixabank, S.A.

Questions referred

Given that the Spanish system provides in Article 43 of the LEC (1) that, where an individual action is brought concurrently by a consumer, the effect is that that action must be stayed and treated as a preliminary issue pending final judgment in collective proceedings, and that the consumer is bound by the decision in those proceedings without having had the opportunity to put forward the appropriate pleas or adduce evidence with full equality of arms:






1.


Can it be considered [that the Spanish legal system provides for] an effective means or mechanism pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 (2)?










2.


To what extent does the effect of a stay of proceedings preclude a consumer from complaining that the unfair terms included in the contract concluded with him are void, and, therefore, infringe Article 7(1) of the directive?










3.


Does the fact that a consumer is unable to dissociate himself from collective proceedings constitute an infringement of Article 7(3) of Directive 93/13?










4.


Or, on the other hand, is the effect of a stay of proceedings provided for in Article 43 of the LEC compatible with Directive 93/13 on the grounds that the rights of consumers are fully safeguarded by a collective action, because the Spanish legal system provides for other equally effective procedural mechanisms for the protection of consumers’ rights and by the principle of legal certainty?






(1)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Spanish Code of Civil Procedure).

(2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014261EN.01000101.xml










11.8.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/1





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

2014/C 261/01

Last publication


OJ C 253, 4.8.2014


Past publications


OJ C 245, 28.7.2014


OJ C 235, 21.7.2014


OJ C 223, 14.7.2014


OJ C 212, 7.7.2014


OJ C 202, 30.6.2014


OJ C 194, 24.6.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-592/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: international sanctions, ownership, powers of the institutions (EU), protection of privacy








C_2014361EN.01001602.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/16





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-592/14)
2014/C 361/22
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested measures are unlawful, in so far as they (i) infringe the obligation to state reasons laid down by Articles 296 TFEU and 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and (ii) infringe the applicant’s right to property laid down by Article 1 of the Additional Protocol No 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’) and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and infringe the right to respect for his good name and reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant has suffered damage as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, that a European Union regime of strict liability exists.
Case T-603/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Drex Technologies v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01002101.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/21





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-603/14)
2014/C 361/31
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;










—


In consequence, order the European Union to compensate the applicant for the total loss suffered, up to EUR 10  000;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
Case C-384/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judge, language policy, rights of the defence








C_2014388EN.01000302.xml










3.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 388/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen
(Case C-384/14)
2014/C 388/04
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alta Realitat S.L.

Defendants: Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen

Questions referred







1)


Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the national court hearing the action may determine, on the basis of all the information in the court-file at its disposal, whether an addressee understands a [particular] language?




If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:






2)


Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 be interpreted to the effect that, where the national court hearing the action has determined, on the basis of all the information in the court-file at its disposal, that [the] addressee does understand a [particular] language, the person effecting service in such a situation does not have to offer the addressee the option of refusing the document?










3)


Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 be interpreted to the effect that, if the addressee of a notice refuses a document drafted in a certain language, following a declaration from the court hearing the action that that person has a sufficient level of understanding of that language, the refusal of the document is not justified, and the court hearing the action may apply the consequences provided for in the legislation of the State of transmission to this type of unjustified refusal of a document and, if the procedural rules of the State of transmission so provide, treat the document as having been served on the addressee?






(1)  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 (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.
Case C-382/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2014439EN.01001601.xml










8.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 439/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-382/14)
(2014/C 439/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider

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-609/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014361EN.01002401.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/24





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
(Case T-609/14)
2014/C 361/36
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 123/2014-4;










—


order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  986

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations
Case T-598/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01001901.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/19





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-598/14)
2014/C 361/27
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation of EUR 10  000 for all the damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council.
Case T-604/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01002102.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/21





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-604/14)
2014/C 361/32
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;










—


in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.
Case T-605/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Drex Technologies v Council
Date: 2014-08-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, ownership








C_2014361EN.01002201.xml










13.10.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/22





Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Drex Technologies v Council
(Case T-605/14)
2014/C 361/33
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d’Elzius, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its action to be both admissible and well founded;










—


consequently, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and the subsequent measures implementing it in so far as they concern the applicant;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
 (1).


(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.