do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-840/14: Action brought on 23 December 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (Sky BONUS)
Date: 2014-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015065EN.01005001.xml










23.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/50





Action brought on 23 December 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (Sky BONUS)
(Case T-840/14)
(2015/C 065/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Sky BONUS’ — Application for registration No 10 734 549

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2040/2013-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Partially annul the contested decision and grant registration of CTM application ‘Sky BONUS’;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/19 of 23 December 2014 establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in area IIIa, Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of Germany
Date: 2014-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic Sea, EU waters, Germany, North Sea, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag








L_2015004EN.01000501.xml










8.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 4/5








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2015/19
of 23 December 2014
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for haddock in area IIIa, Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32 by vessels flying the flag of Germany


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 (2) lays down quotas for 2014.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2014.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2014 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 December 2014.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2014 of 20 January 2014 fixing for 2014 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, to Union vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 24, 28.1.2014, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


82/TQ43




Member State


Germany




Stock


HAD/3A/BCD




Species


Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)




Zone


IIIa, Union waters of Subdivisions 22-32




Closing date


14.12.2014
Case C-608/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014  — Elena Delia Pondiche v The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării
Date: 2014-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: children's rights, equal treatment, social-security benefit








C_2015089EN.01001001.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Elena Delia Pondiche v The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării
(Case C-608/14)
(2015/C 089/11)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elena Delia Pondiche

Defendants: The Romanian State and Consiliul Naţional pentru Combaterea Discriminării

Questions referred







1.


May social protection, the rights of the child and the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as guaranteed in EU law by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 20, 21(1), 24(1) and (2), 34 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 3(1)(b) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) be interpreted as precluding certain provisions of national law which limit, with no objective and reasonable justification, the amount of the child maintenance allowance on the basis of the date of birth of the child rather than the date of conception, even though that child, if born alive and viable, can be considered to have existed from that date?










2.


Does Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului No 111/2010 introduce a measure discriminating between people who are in identical situations, that is to say, between children conceived and born before 31 December 2010 and children conceived before 31 December 2010 and born after that date?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (Text with relevance for the EEA and for Switzerland) (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Case C-609/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2014-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Romania, interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty








C_2015107EN.01001801.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-609/14)
(2015/C 107/25)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Nicolae Ilie Nicula

Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica

Question referred

Are Article 110 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, affirmed in EU law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as OUG No 9/2013?