do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-394/14: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Article 99 — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Long delay to a flight — Passengers’ right to compensation — Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation — Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2015016EN.01001502.xml










19.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/15






Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Sandy Siewert and Others v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-394/14) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Article 99 - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Long delay to a flight - Passengers’ right to compensation - Conditions exempting an air carrier from its obligation to pay compensation - Notion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Aircraft damaged by a set of mobile boarding stairs in the course of a preceding flight)
(2015/C 016/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sandy Siewert, Emma Siewert, Nele Siewert

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 5(3) of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where, as in in the case before the referring court, an airport’s set of mobile boarding stairs collides with an aircraft cannot be categorised as ‘extraordinary circumstances’ exempting the air carrier from its obligation to pay the passengers compensation in the event of a long delay to a flight operated by that aircraft.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Corrigendum to Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) ( OJ C 280, 22.8.2014 )
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_2014404EN.01000301.xml










14.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/3





Corrigendum to Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 280 of 22 August 2014
)
2014/C 404/03
On page 65, aid number SA.39103 (2014/X):

for:







‘Member State


Latvia




Member State reference number


 




Name of the Region (NUTS)


Latvia
Article 107(3)(a)’






read:







‘Member State


Lithuania




Member State reference number


 




Name of the Region (NUTS)


Lithuania
Article 107(3)(a)’
Case T-755/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, derogation from EU law, judicial proceedings, provision of documents, tobacco industry








C_2015026EN.01003701.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/37





Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Herbert Smith Freehills/Commission
(Case T-755/14)
(2015/C 026/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Wytinck, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The Applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070 of the European Commission, of 24 September 2014, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the Applicant in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Applicant seeks the annulment of Decision GESTDEM 2014/2070, of 24 September 2014, whereby the Commission refused the Applicant’s request for access under Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) to certain documents related to the adoption of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 3 April 2014, on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (2).
In support of this action, the Applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that none of the undisclosed documents identified by the Commission falls within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of court proceedings.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that certain undisclosed documents identified by the Commission do not fall within the scope of the exception relating to the protection of legal advice.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents identified pursuant to the Applicant's access to documents request.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
Case C-513/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, shopping centre, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01002501.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/25





Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-687/13 Unibail v OHIM
(Case C-513/14 P)
(2015/C 138/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment under appeal,










—


Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and










—


Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2014404EN.01000201.xml










14.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

13 November 2014
2014/C 404/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2456




JPY


Japanese yen


143,87




DKK


Danish krone


7,4424




GBP


Pound sterling


0,79120




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2442




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2018




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,4565




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,644




HUF


Hungarian forint


306,36




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2282




RON


Romanian leu


4,4305




TRY


Turkish lira


2,8054




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4254




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4111




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6601




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5766




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6086




KRW


South Korean won


1 361,16




ZAR


South African rand


13,9810




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6319




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6683




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 183,20




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1557




PHP


Philippine peso


55,901




RUB


Russian rouble


58,0382




THB


Thai baht


40,862




BRL


Brazilian real


3,2058




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9243




INR


Indian rupee


76,6293






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-512/14 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, graphic illustration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01002403.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/24





Appeal brought on 14 November 2014 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment delivered on 3 September 2014 in Case T-686/13, Unibail v OHIM
(Case C-512/14 P)
(2015/C 138/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Unibail Management

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the judgment under appeal,










—


Rule on the dispute pursuant to the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, and










—


Order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs incurred by OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises a single ground of appeal in support of its appeal. OHIM submits that the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, read in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of the same regulation. The General Court misconstrued not only the scope of the concept of general reasoning, but also its own case-law. Finally, the appellant criticises the General Court for having reversed the burden of proof.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case C-510/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2015073EN.01001001.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Marianne Parigger v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
(Case C-510/14)
(2015/C 073/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Marianne Parigger

Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 9 December 2014.
Case T-764/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender








C_2015026EN.01003801.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/38





Action brought on 14 November 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dinamiki v Commission
(Case T-764/14)
(2015/C 026/49)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfiri and I Ambazis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the European Commission decision Ares(2014) 2903214 of 5 September 2014 whereby the Commission rejected the applicants’ tender within the framework of the EuropeAid/135040/C/SER/MULTI closed procurement procedure;·










—


as appropriate, order the restoration of the status quo ante;










—


order the Commission to pay all the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicants rely on the following:
In the opinion of the applicants, the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, on the following grounds:






 


First, because the experience of the participants was evaluated at the stage of the award procedure, although that experience had already been examined at the pre-selection stage.










 


Second, because the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons for the decision by giving insufficient reasons for the ranking of the applicants’ technical offer and failing to communicate the full composition of the winning consortium and the essential elements of the financial offer.










 


Third, because the Commission committed a series of manifest errors of assessment in the evaluation of the applicants’ technical offer, infringing at the same time the principle of equal treatment of participants.










 


Fourth, because the Commission infringed the Financial Regulation and the principle of transparency which that imposes.
Case T-753/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — Ice Mountain Ibiza v OHIM — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, leisure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015026EN.01003602.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/36





Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v OHIM — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)
(Case T-753/14)
(2015/C 026/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etyam, SL (Islas Baleares, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 1 0 6 10  491

Procedure before OHIM: Partial opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2293/2013-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including all those resulting to date from proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM at earlier stages of the proceedings which have led to the present action.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-511/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014  — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law - national law, claim, judicial cooperation








C_2015034EN.01001001.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2014 — Pebros Servizi s.r.l. v Aston Martin Lagonda Limited
(Case C-511/14)
(2015/C 034/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale civile di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pebros Servizi s.r.l.

Defendant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited

Question referred

In the case of a judgment in default (of appearance), given against the defendant in default of appearance/failing to appear without, moreover, there being any express acknowledgement of the law by the defendant in default/failing to appear;
Is it for national law to decide whether such procedural conduct amounts to non-contestation, for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004/EC of 21 April 2004 (1), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 30 April 2004, which could possibly, under national law, negate the uncontested nature of the claim

or

Does a judgment in default of appearance constitute, by reason of its very nature alone, on the basis of EU law, non-contestation, with the result that Regulation No 805/2004 applies, irrespective of the assessment of the national court?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15).
Case T-763/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, holding company, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01003801.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/38






Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Soprema v OHIM — Sopro Bauchemie (SOPRAPUR)
(Case T-763/14)
(2015/C 073/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Holding Soprema (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sopro Bauchemie GmbH (Wiesbaden, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘SOPRAPUR’– International registration designating the European Union No 977 642

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 August 2014 in Case R 1370/2013-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7359 — PCCR USA/Total's CCP Composite business)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2014-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, United States, building materials, economic concentration, merger control








C_2014404EN.01000101.xml










14.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 404/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7359 — PCCR USA/Total's CCP Composite business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2014/C 404/01
On 27 October 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7359. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.