do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-513/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SafeSet — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01004701.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/47





Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2015 — Braun Melsungen v OHIM (SafeSet)
(Case T-513/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SafeSet - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 138/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Seiler, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 1598/2012-1), concerning an application for registration of the word mark SafeSet as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders B. Braun Melsungen AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
Case C-113/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: catering, honey, labelling, packaged product, pre-packaging








C_2015198EN.01001602.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München
(Case C-113/15)
(2015/C 198/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

Questions referred







1.


Are individual portions of honey which are packaged in bulk in a carton containing all the labelling elements, including the indication of the country of origin, and which are not sold as individual portions to final consumers nor supplied individually to mass caterers, ‘prepackaged foodstuff’ or ‘prepacked food’ within the meaning of Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) and Article 2(2)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (2) respectively, for which there is a corresponding labelling requirement, or are such portions of honey not subject to the labelling requirements for prepackaged foodstuff/prepacked foods due to their not being offered for sale as a single item?










2.


Is the answer different if those individual portions are supplied in mass catering establishments not only in meals that are paid for as a whole but are also sold individually?






(1)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

(2)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.
Case C-116/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, biometrics, cross-frontier data flow, data protection, information system








C_2015146EN.01003002.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/30





Action brought on 6 March 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-116/15)
(2015/C 146/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola, M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


join the present case with the case registered under number C-14/15 for the purposes of the written or oral part of the procedure or of the judgment;










—


annul Council Decision 2014/911/EU of 4 December 2014 on the launch of automated data exchange with regard to dactyloscopic data in Latvia (1);










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament invokes two pleas in law in support of its action based on Article 263 TFEU.
By its first plea in law, the Parliament claims that the Council used an incorrect legal basis in order to adopt Decision 2014/911/EU. In the context of that first plea in law, the Parliament puts forward two limbs of reasoning. The Parliament claims in particular that the Council should have found a legal basis for the contested decision amongst the provisions of the TFEU and that, in any event, the Council relied on an unlawful provision for the adoption of Decision 2014/911/EU. It used a derived legal basis, which, as such, is unlawful, in accordance with the Court’s case-law. Under that plea, the Parliament raises a plea of illegality relating to Article 25(2) of Decision 2008/615/JHA (2).
By its second plea in law, the Parliament complains that the Council used an incorrect decisional procedure in order to adopt that decision. The Parliament thus derives therefrom an infringement of the Treaties and an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.


(1)  OJ 2014 L 360, p. 28.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 210, p. 1.
Respect consumer rights : your customers will come back for more.
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice
Subjects: consumer information, consumer motivation, consumer protection, retail trade

Respect
     consumer rights

RESOLVE

RETURN

Your customers  
will come back for more

> Discover more on youreurope.eu
> #EU4Consumers

N
-
N
E
-
8
8
4
-
4
1
-
1
0
-
S
D
Case F-38/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disabled person, expenditure, expert's report ordered by a court, health insurance








C_2015178EN.01002602.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/26





Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament
(Case F-38/15)
(2015/C 178/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to cover certain non-medical costs incurred for the applicant’s son.

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the appointing authority’s decision of 18 June 2014 not to cover certain non-medical expenses which are not reimbursed by the JSIS, resulting from the disability of the applicant’s son, is unlawful;










—


in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure in order to determine the rate of incapacity resulting from the disability;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7521 — Steinhoff International Holdings/Pepkor Holdings) — Candidate case for simplified procedure  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2015-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, holding company, merger control, textile industry








C_2015078EN.01000801.xml










6.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/8





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7521 — Steinhoff International Holdings/Pepkor Holdings)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 78/08)






1.


On 26 February 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Steinhoff International Holdings Limited (‘Steinhoff’, Republic of South Africa) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Pepkor Holdings Proprietary Limited (‘Pepkor’, Republic of South Africa) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Steinhoff is active in Europe in the retailing of furniture, household goods, products for home decoration, electrical appliances, consumer electronics, do-it-yourself home improvement items and floor coverings, as well as in the manufacturing and wholesale of furniture,










—


Pepkor manages a group of retail chains. In Europe, Pepkor is active through Pepco, a retailer of clothing and footwear, household goods and products for home decoration, as well as cosmetics and cellular airtime.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in this Notice.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.7521 — Steinhoff International Holdings/Pepkor Holdings, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.