do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-30/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, legal expenses, pay, promotion








C_2015146EN.01005002.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/50





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
(Case F-30/15)
(2015/C 146/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision, adopted pursuant to the annulling judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 26 February 2014 in Case F-53/13, Diamantopoulos v EEAS, not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise, and the claim for damages for the non-material and material harm allegedly sustained.

Form of order sought







—


Declare unlawful the decision of 29 April 2014 not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2012 promotion exercise;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant damages of EUR 25  000;










—


order EEAS to pay the costs.
Case C-80/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil aviation, crew, customs regulations, helicopter, interpretation of the law, provision of services








C_2015155EN.01001402.xml










11.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Robert Fuchs AG v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
(Case C-80/15)
(2015/C 155/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Robert Fuchs AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Question referred

Must Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1) laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 (2) be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flight training with helicopters in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter also amounts to a commercial use of a means of transport?


(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993, L 253, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2003, L 343 p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7481 — Brookfield/TDF)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: broadcasting, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, telecommunications industry








C_2015062EN.01000101.xml










20.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7481 — Brookfield/TDF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 62/01)
On 12 February 2015, 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 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 32015M7481. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-88/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cold store, graphic illustration, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01005902.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/59





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a radiator grille)
(Case T-88/15)
(2015/C 138/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a radiator grille — Application for registration No 1 1 8 67  173

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 December 2014 in Case R 1798/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;










—


allow the community trade mark application no. 1 1 8 67  173 to proceed to publication;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-78/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer information, cosmetic product, interpretation of the law, labelling, optical industry








C_2015171EN.01001601.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2015 — Colena AG v Deiters GmbH
(Case C-78/15)
(2015/C 171/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Colena AG

Defendant: Deiters GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are coloured non-corrective themed contact lenses consisting of copolymers and water (hydrogel) a ‘cosmetic product’ (‘substance’ and/or ‘mixture’) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 (1), which is intended, within the meaning of that provision, to be placed in contact with external parts of the human body?










2.


Can the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 be extended to a situation where a product which does not fulfil the conditions of Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation appears to be a cosmetic product according to the predominant purpose for a reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect average consumer, for example owing to the fact that wording such as ‘Cosmetic eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ or ‘Colour eye accessories are governed by the EU Cosmetics Directive’ is used on the packaging?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ 2009 L 342, p. 59.
Case T-87/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
Date: 2015-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, graphic illustration, motor vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01005901.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/59





Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Aston Martin Lagonda v OHIM (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
(Case T-87/15)
(2015/C 138/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aston Martin Lagonda Ltd (Gaydon, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community mark indicated as ‘other’ representing a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle — Application for registration of a Community trade mark No 11 867 215

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2014 in Case R 1797/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for prima facie lacked distinctive character for the goods and services in question;










—


allow the community trade mark application No 11 867 215 to proceed to publication;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.