do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (codification)’ COM(2014) 318 final — 2014/0164 (COD)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, import (EU), originating product, protective clause, third country








C_2015242EN.01006601.xml










23.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/66





Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (codification)’
COM(2014) 318 final — 2014/0164 (COD)
(2015/C 242/12)
On 20 October 2014, the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures (codification)

COM(2014) 318 final — 2014/0164 (COD).
Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 504th plenary session of 21 and 22 January 2015 (meeting of 21 January 2015), by 219 votes to 1 with 10 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 21 January 2015.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Henri MALOSSE
Case C-25/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against István Balogh
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, criminal liability, criminal procedure, interpretation of the law








C_2015127EN.01001001.xml










20.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Criminal proceedings against István Balogh
(Case C-25/15)
(2015/C 127/15)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budapest Környéki Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

István Balogh

Question referred

Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings reads: ‘This Directive lays down rules concerning the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of an European arrest warrant’. Must this formulation be taken to mean, inter alia, that, during a special procedure (Chapter XXIX of a büntetőeljárásról szóló 1998. évi XIX. törvény (Law XIX of 1998 on criminal procedure)), a court in Hungary must apply this Directive, that is to say, must a special procedure under Hungarian law be regarded as being covered by the expression ‘criminal proceedings’, or must this expression be interpreted as referring only to procedures which conclude with a final decision concerning the criminal liability of the defendant?


(1)  OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1.
Case F-7/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, redemption, travel








C_2015089EN.01004701.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/47





Action brought on 21 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
(Case F-7/15)
(2015/C 089/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of decisions establishing the rights of the applicants with regard to reimbursement of their annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union as well as the decisions to be adopted annually from 2015 and the rejection of an application for an order that the Commission reimburse their actual expenses in respect of annual travel to their place of origin, calculated on the basis of the aforementioned provision, as applied prior to the entry into force of the amended Staff Regulations in 2014.

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decisions establishing the rights of the applicants with regard to their annual travel under Article 8 of Annex VII to the EU Staff Regulations, as in force from 1 January 2015, since that decision was disclosed for the first time in their pay slips for June 2014, issued on 12 June 2014;










—


Annul any other decision to be adopted annually, from 2015, under that provision;










—


Annul, as appropriate, the decision of 15 October 2014 rejecting their claim;










—


Order the defendant to reimburse the applicants’ expenses in respect of their annual travel to their place of origin covering their actual expenses and on the basis of the aforementioned provision, as applied prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations in 2014, that amount being increased by default interest as from 12 June 2014, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations as applicable during the period in question, increased by three percentage points, until the day of payment of the sum so due;










—


Order the defendant to pay the entire costs.
Case T-29/15: Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, audit, financial management, general budget (EU), public contract








C_2015081EN.01002801.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/28





Action brought on 21 January 2015 — International Management Group v Commission
(Case T-29/15)
(2015/C 081/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: International Management Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Burgstaller and C. Farrell, Solicitors, and E. Wright, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the amended Annex to the Commission Implementing Decision of 7.11.2013 on the Annual Action Programme 2013 in favour of Myanmar/Burma to be financed from the general budget of the European Union adopted on 16 December 2014; and










—


order the European Commission to pay for the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to demonstrate that the applicant did not comply with the requirements provided in Article 53(d)(l) of the 2002 Financial Regulation (1) and Article 60(2) of the 2012 Financial Regulation (2).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that there were no changes to the standards applied in the applicant’s account, audit, internal control or procurement systems that would justify a decision by the European Commission to conclude that the applicant could no longer be entrusted with budget implementation tasks.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to respect principles of good administration and sound financial management.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligations related to the principle of transparency.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to provide the applicant with a route to redress.










6.


Sixth plea in law, alleging that Commission failed in its duty to give reasons.










7.


Seventh plea in law, alleging that the adoption of the contested measures constitutes a breach of the applicant’s right to legitimate expectation.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, of 25 June 2002, on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended (OJ 2002, L 248, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 October 2012, on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012, L 298, p. 1).
Case T-11/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia AG v OHIM (Pianissimo) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Pianissimo — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01002901.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 AG v OHIM (Pianissimo)
(Case T-11/14) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Pianissimo - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
(2015/C 073/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 November 2013 (Case R 441/2013-4), confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign Pianissimo 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 135, 5.5.2014.
Case T-587/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat & clean) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark cat & clean — Prior Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obstacles to the free movement of goods — Article 34 TFEU — Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, domestic animal, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2015073EN.01002502.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/25






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Schwerdt v OHIM — Iberamigo (cat & clean)
(Case T-587/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark cat & clean - Prior Spanish word mark CLEAN CAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obstacles to the free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights)
(2015/C 073/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Miriam Schwerdt (Porta-Westfalica, Germany) (represented by: K. Kruse, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Iberamigo, SA (Rubi, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2013 (Case R 1799/2012-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Iberamigo, SA and Ms Miriam Schwerdt.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Miriam Schwerdt to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2015018EN.01000501.xml










21.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 January 2015
(2015/C 18/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1579




JPY


Japanese yen


137,37




DKK


Danish krone


7,4351




GBP


Pound sterling


0,76370




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4297




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0087




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,8015




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,849




HUF


Hungarian forint


317,53




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3275




RON


Romanian leu


4,5093




TRY


Turkish lira


2,7010




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4123




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3910




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9772




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5014




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5502




KRW


South Korean won


1 259,61




ZAR


South African rand


13,4621




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,1948




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,7015




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 535,84




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,1771




PHP


Philippine peso


51,632




RUB


Russian rouble


75,3825




THB


Thai baht


37,845




BRL


Brazilian real


3,0378




MXN


Mexican peso


16,9308




INR


Indian rupee


71,4500






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-685/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark BLUECO — Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01002801.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/28






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)
(Case T-685/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark BLUECO - Earlier Community word mark BLUE COAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
(2015/C 073/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, California, United States) (represented by: V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (Case R 2028/2012-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Blue Coat Systems, Inc. and Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.
Case T-46/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA — Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015073EN.01002401.xml










2.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/24






Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Sabores de Navarra v OHIM — Frutas Solano (KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA)
(Case T-46/13) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark KIT, EL SABOR DE NAVARRA - Earlier Community figurative mark Sabores de Navarra La Sabiduría del Sabor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 15 and Article 57(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which alter the distinctive character of the mark)
(2015/C 073/31)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sabores de Navarra, AIE (Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero, O. González Fernández and L. Estropa Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Frutas Solano, SA (Calahorra, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 November 2012 (Joined Cases R 2542/2011-2 and R 2550/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Sabores de Navarra, AIE and Frutas Solano, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sabores de Navarra, AIE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Case C-24/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, interpretation of the law, supply, tax, tax exemption, tax offence








C_2015138EN.01002701.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen
(Case C-24/15)
(2015/C 138/38)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Josef Plöckl

Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

Question referred

Do Article 22(8), the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to refuse to grant a tax exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply (in this instance, an intra-Community transfer) where, although the supplier has not taken all the measures that can reasonably be expected of him from the point of view of the formal requirements applicable to the recording of the [VAT] identification number, there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-418/13: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2015  — Richter + Frenzel v OHIM — Ferdinand Richter (Richter + Frenzel) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mechanical engineering, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015089EN.01002502.xml










16.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/25





Order of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Richter + Frenzel v OHIM — Ferdinand Richter (Richter + Frenzel)
(Case T-418/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 089/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by: D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (Case R 2001/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferdinand Richter GmbH and Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The applicant and intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.