do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-6/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015 — ZZ v EASA
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, legality, temporary employment, termination of a contract








C_2015107EN.01004001.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/40






Action brought on 21 January 2015 — ZZ v EASA
(Case F-6/15)
(2015/C 107/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: E. Asenov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency terminating the applicant’s fixed-term contract before the expiry date laid down in the contract and application for damages with interest in respect of the material and non-material damage arising from the early termination of his contract.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested Decision No 2014/039/E of 16 April 2014, which terminates prematurely the applicant’s contract, upheld by EASA Decision No SR 14-005 of 27 October 2014;










—


Award compensation for the moral damages suffered by the applicant in the form of humiliation, insult, broken reputation and deteriorating health, caused by the decision. The applicant’s estimation of these moral damages is EUR 100 000;










—


Award compensation for the material damages suffered by the applicant as a result of the early termination of his contract. They are equal to the difference between the applicant’s full salary and the compensation under Article 47(b)(ii) CEOS for the period between the early termination of the applicant’s contract and the day of its re-establishment or the date when the contract expires at 1 November 2015. The estimation of the difference amounts to around EUR 75 000, but more precise calculations can be made by the EASA accountant’s office;










—


Restore the normal execution of the applicant’s contract and the applicant’s professional relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency;










—


As to evidence:






—


one witness to be summoned for the oral part of the proceedings in order to testify about the applicant’s reputation amongst the civil aviation community before the illegal suspension.










—


one witness to be summoned for the oral part of the proceedings in order to testify about the applicant’s mental and health state during and after the illegal suspension and termination of his contract.










—


EASA to be ordered to submit the list of its sensitive posts.














—


As to costs, the defendant to be ordered to bear its own judicial costs incurred as well as those of the applicant, including the costs of the lawyer representing the applicant before the Civil Service Tribunal, witnesses’ costs and any other costs incurred in relation to the proceedings.
Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-1/15)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, engine, greenhouse gas, infringement of EU law, reduction of gas emissions








C_2015092EN.01003501.xml










19.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/35





Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-1/15)
(2015/C 92/09)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare that by failing to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than on 18 February 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2013 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Directive 2010/26/EU of 31 March 2010 amending Directive 97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, as referred to at point 1a, seventh indent, of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.
Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-2/15)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, air safety, civil aviation, consumer protection, infringement of EU law, police checks, traveller








C_2015092EN.01003601.xml










19.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 92/36





Action brought on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-2/15)
(2015/C 92/10)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 January 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Janne Tysnes Kaasin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to make as such part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement;










2.


order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 9 September 2014, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 9 July 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 104/2013 of 4 February 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 185/2010 as regards the screening of passengers and persons other than passengers by Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) equipment in combination with Hand Held Metal Detection (HHMD) equipment, as referred to at point 66he of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and the sectoral adaptations in Annex XIII (‘the Act’).










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to make the Act as such part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed.
Case T-188/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GentleCare — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01002902.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/29






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)
(Case T-188/14) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GentleCare - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
(2015/C 073/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2014 (Case R 739/2013-5) confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign GentleCare as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case C-529/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) — Difference of treatment on grounds of age — Civil service — Pension scheme — National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, equal treatment, pension scheme, working conditions








C_2015107EN.01001001.xml










30.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 107/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur
(Case C-529/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) and (2) - Difference of treatment on grounds of age - Civil service - Pension scheme - National legislation precluding the taking into account of periods of school education completed before the age of 18))
(2015/C 107/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Georg Felber

Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1) and (2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the crediting of periods of school education completed by a civil servant before the age of 18 for the purpose of the grant of pension entitlement and the calculation of the amount of his retirement pension, in so far as that legislation is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim relating to employment policy and labour market policy and constitutes an appropriate and necessary means of achieving that aim.


(1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.
Case T-509/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds — Duty to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Right to privacy — Proportionality)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2015073EN.01002201.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/22






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-509/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds - Duty to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Right to privacy - Proportionality)
(2015/C 073/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Mohammad Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: C. Rygaert and G. Karouni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2011/488/CFSP of 1 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 199, p. 74), Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/273/CFSP (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 56) and Council Decision 2012/739/CFSP of 29 November 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and repealing Decision 2011/782/CFSP (OJ 2012 L 330, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Mohammad Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.
Case T-355/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Airport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds — Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: airport, competition law, dominant position, provision of services








C_2015073EN.01002501.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/25






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission
(Case T-355/13) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Airport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds - Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question - Obligation to state reasons)
(2015/C 073/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Werner and R. Marian, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Luchthaven Schiphol NV (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, G. Hakopian and S. Molin, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against Luchthaven Schiphol NV in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the airport services market (Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.