do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2014462EN.01000101.xml










22.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/1





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

(2014/C 462/01)

Last publication


OJ C 448, 15.12.2014


Past publications


OJ C 439, 8.12.2014


OJ C 431, 1.12.2014


OJ C 421, 24.11.2014


OJ C 409, 17.11.2014


OJ C 395, 10.11.2014


OJ C 388, 3.11.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case F-140/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, contract, damages, indemnification








C_2015065EN.01005501.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/55





Action brought on 22 December 2014 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-140/14)
(2015/C 065/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to re-establish the career of the applicant by re-grading her, with effect from 1 March 2005, in a higher function group, and claim for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts of Employment (AECE) dated 17 September 2014, sent by a note of 18 September 2014 and received by the applicant on 19 September 2014;










—


Order payment of compensation for the harm suffered by the applicant assessed ex aequo et bono in the amount of EUR 30  000;










—


Order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Case T-844/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2015065EN.01005101.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/51





Action brought on 22 December 2014 — GRE v OHIM (Mark1)
(Case T-844/14)
(2015/C 065/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Mark 1’ — Application No 12 052 461

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 648/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-594/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, claim, financial solvency, judicial proceedings, maintenance, receivership








C_2015127EN.01000702.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd
(Case C-594/14)
(2015/C 127/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Simona Kornhaas

Defendant: Thomas Dithmar as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

Questions referred







a)


If a liquidator brings an action before a German court against a director of a private company limited by shares under English and Welsh law, in respect of whose assets in Germany insolvency proceedings have been opened pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation (1), the purpose of the action being to seek reimbursement of payments which the director made before the opening of the insolvency proceedings but after the company had become unable to pay its debts, is that action governed by German insolvency law within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Insolvency Regulation?










b)


Does an action as referred to above infringe freedom of establishment under Articles 49 and 54 TFEU?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
Case C-601/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014  — European Commission v Italian Republic
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, help for victims, indemnification, infringement of EU law, offence








C_2015089EN.01000701.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/7





Action brought on 22 December 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-601/14)
(2015/C 089/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of all violent intentional crimes committed in its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC (1);










—


order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Directive 2004/80/EC institutes a system of cooperation between the authorities of the Member States to facilitate the access of victims of crime throughout the European Union to appropriate compensation in cross-border situations. The system operates on the basis of Member States’ schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories. To ensure that system of cooperation is fully operational, Article 12(2) of that directive requires the Member States to have or to introduce a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims. That obligation must be understood as referring to all violent intentional crimes and not as referring to only some of them.
Italian law makes provision for a national scheme on compensation to crime victims which consists of a series of special laws on compensation for certain violent intentional crimes, but does not make provision for a general compensation scheme which covers victims of all crimes identified and categorised by the Italian Penal Code as violent intentional crimes. In particular, Italian law does not provide a scheme on compensation for violent intentional crimes which are forms of ‘common crime’ not covered by those special laws.
Consequently, it must be stated that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80/EC.


(1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).
Case C-596/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014  — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, indemnification, temporary employment, working conditions








C_2015096EN.01000302.xml










23.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social (Spain) lodged on 22 December 2014 — Ana de Diego Porras v Ministerio de Defensa
(Case C-596/14)
(2015/C 096/05)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sección 3 de lo Social

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ana de Diego Porras

Defendant: Ministerio de Defensa

Questions referred







1.


Is the compensation due on termination of a temporary contract covered by the employment conditions to which Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP refers (1)?










2.


If such compensation is covered by the employment conditions, must workers with an employment contract or relationship entered into directly between an employer and a worker where the end of the employment contract or relationship is determined by objective conditions, such as reaching a specific date, completing a specific task or service, or the occurrence of a specific event, receive, on termination of the contract, the same compensation as that to which a comparable permanent worker is entitled when his contract is terminated for objective reasons?










3.


If a temporary worker is entitled to receive the same compensation as a permanent worker on termination of the contract for objective reasons, must Article 49(1)(c) of the Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Workers’ Statute) be regarded as having correctly transposed Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, or is it discriminatory and contrary to that directive in that it undermines its purpose and its effectiveness?










4.


If there are no objective reasons for excluding temporary replacement workers from the entitlement to receive compensation on termination of a temporary contract, is the distinction which the Worker’s Statute establishes between the employment conditions of those workers discriminatory, compared not only with the conditions of permanent workers but also with those of other temporary workers?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case T-839/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Alnapharm v OHIM — Novartis (Alrexil)
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015065EN.01004901.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/49





Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Alnapharm v OHIM — Novartis (Alrexil)
(Case T-839/14)
(2015/C 065/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Alnapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Heldt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Alrexil’ — Application for registration No 10 306 249

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 1723/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal of OHIM;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-600/14: Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union
Date: 2014-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, action for annulment (EU), international convention, international transport, rail transport








C_2015073EN.01001702.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/17






Action brought on 22 December 2014 — Federal Republic of Germany v Council of the European Union
(Case C-600/14)
(2015/C 073/24)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision 2014/699/EU of 24 June 2014 in so far as it refers to the amendment of Article 12 of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF — Basic Convention) and of Appendices B (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of International Carriage of Goods by Rail — CIM), D (Uniform Rules concerning Contracts of Use of Vehicles in International Rail Traffic — CUV) and E (Uniform Rules concerning the Contract of Use of Infrastructure in International Rail Traffic — CUI) thereto (Article 1 of the decision in conjunction with point 3, items 4 (in so far as Article 12 of the COTIF — Basic Convention is affected), 5, 7 and 12 of the annex), and










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


In the opinion of the German Government, Articles 91 and 218(9) TFEU do not confer on the European Union the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making on the occasion of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee. Therefore, by adopting the decision, the Council infringed the principle of conferral pursuant to the first sentence of Article 5(2) TEU.










2.


Furthermore, the statement of reasons of the contested decision is defective because it is not sufficiently clear from that decision why the European Union has the competence to develop a common position relating to all the rules which were the subject of consultation and decision-making at the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee.










3.


In addition, by adopting the contested measure only one day before the start of the 25th meeting of the OTIF Revision Committee, the Council infringed the principle of sincere cooperation in conjunction with the principle of effective legal protection. As a result, the Federal Republic of Germany was deprived of any opportunity to bring the matter before the Court of Justice in due time in order to obtain (interim) legal protection against the contested decision.