do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-377/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark ultra.air ultrafilter — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy saving, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015138EN.01004602.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/46





Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultra.air ultrafilter)
(Case T-377/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark ultra.air ultrafilter - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 138/60)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany) (represented by: N. Siebertz, M. Teworte-Vey and A. Renvert, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH and ultra air GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 May 2013 (Case R 1100/2011-4) in so far as it concerns time control systems;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders ultra air GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM and by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.
Case C-120/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, VAT, interest, tax relief








C_2015213EN.01001402.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Košiciach (Slovakia) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Kovozber s.r.o. v Daňový úrad Košice
(Case C-120/15)
(2015/C 213/22)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Košiciach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kovozber s.r.o.

Defendant: Daňový úrad Košice

Questions referred







1.


Must the first paragraph of Article 183 of Directive 2006/112/EC, as amended by Directive 2006/138/EC (1), be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in determining the conditions for refunding an excess deduction of value added tax, makes the award of default interest (on the delayed refund of value added tax) conditional on the expiry of a period of 10 days from completion of the tax inspection for ascertaining whether the claim to the refund of the excess deduction is justified?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it for the national court, in the absence of national legislation on default interest after a period of 10 days from completion of a tax inspection, to determine by analogy, in its own discretion, appropriate legal rules on interest?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 384, p. 92.
Case F-40/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, report, staff assessment








C_2015178EN.01002702.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/27





Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-40/15)
(2015/C 178/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report in respect of 2013.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the appraisal report produced for the applicant in respect of 2013;










—


Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
Case F-41/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, Hungary, London, damages, indemnification, rights of civil servants








C_2015178EN.01002801.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/28





Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ and Others v CEPOL
(Case F-41/15)
(2015/C 178/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others

Defendant: European Police College (CEPOL)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions of the European Police College (CEPOL) leading the applicants either to resign from their posts at CEPOL or to move from London to Budapest at a financial loss, and application for damages for material and non-material harm allegedly caused thereby.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of CEPOL No 17/2014/DIR dated 23 May 2014, providing for the relocation of CEPOL in Budapest, Hungary, as from 1 October 2014 and informing the applicants that ‘Non-compliance with this instruction will be considered as resignation with the effect of 30 September 2014’;










—


annul, also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions dated 28 November 2014, rejecting the applicants’ complaints lodged between 8 and 21 August 2014 against the aforementioned decision;










—


annul also, and so far as necessary, CEPOL’s decisions of 22 December 2014 by which CEPOL ‘accepted’ the resignation of two of the applicants;










—


compensate the material prejudice suffered by the applicants;










—


compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the applicants;










—


order CEPOL to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants for the present appeal.
Case F-39/15: Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015178EN.01002701.xml










1.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/27





Action brought on 9 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-39/15)
(2015/C 178/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights in the EU’s pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 15 October 2014 fixing the calculation of the applicant’s pension rights to be credited which were acquired before his entry into service at the Commission;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-175/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — Deutsche Börse v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Financial instruments sector — European derivatives market — Decision declaring that the concentration is incompatible with the internal market — Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition — Efficiency gains — Commitments)
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, economic concentration, financial market, merger control








C_2015171EN.01002401.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/24





Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2015 — Deutsche Börse v Commission
(Case T-175/12) (1)

((Competition - Concentrations - Financial instruments sector - European derivatives market - Decision declaring that the concentration is incompatible with the internal market - Assessment of the effects of the transaction on competition - Efficiency gains - Commitments))
(2015/C 171/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Börse AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Zschocke, J. Beninca and T. Schwarze, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, V. Bottka, N. Khan and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Icap Securities Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C.T. Riis-Madsen, lawyer, and S. Stephanou, Solicitor)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 440 final of 1 February 2012, declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the internal market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.6166 — Deutsche Börse/NYSE Euronext).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Deutsche Börse AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Icap Securities Ltd.






(1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015081EN.01000101.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 081/01)

Last publication


OJ C 73, 2.3.2015


Past publications


OJ C 65, 23.2.2015


OJ C 56, 16.2.2015


OJ C 46, 9.2.2015


OJ C 34, 2.2.2015


OJ C 26, 26.1.2015


OJ C 16, 19.1.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-118/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (España) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, employer, interpretation of the law, provision of services, staff, supplier








C_2015171EN.01002101.xml










26.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco (España) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea
(Case C-118/15)
(2015/C 171/25)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez

Defendants: Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea

Questions referred

Does Article 1(1)(b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC (1) of 12 March 2001, in conjunction with Article 4(1) thereof, preclude an interpretation of the Spanish legislation intended to give effect to the Directive, to the effect that a public-sector undertaking, responsible for a service central to its own activities and requiring important material resources, that has been providing that service by means of a public contract, requiring the contractor to use those resources which it owns, is not subject to the obligation to take over the rights and obligations relating to employment relationships when it decides not to extend the contract but to assume direct responsibility for its performance, using its own staff and thereby excluding the staff employed by the contractor, so that the service continues to be provided without any change other than that arising as a result of the replacement of the workers performing the activities and the fact that they are employed by a different employer?


(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Case C-119/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
Date: 2015-03-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, collective interest, consumer protection, fine, unfair terms of contract








C_2015198EN.01001801.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 March 2015 — Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej v Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów
(Case C-119/15)
(2015/C 198/24)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Biuro podróży ‘Partner’ Sp. z o.o., Sp. komandytowa w Dąbrowie Górniczej

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów

Questions referred







1.


In the light of Articles 6(1) and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1), in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (2), can the use of standard contract terms with content identical to that of terms which have been declared unlawful by a judicial decision having the force of law and which have been entered in the register of unlawful standard contract terms be regarded, in relation to another undertaking which was not a party to the proceedings culminating in the entry in the register of unlawful standard contract terms, as an unlawful act which, under national law, constitutes a practice which harms the collective interests of consumers and for that reason forms the basis for imposing a fine in national administrative proceedings?










2.


In the light of the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, is a court of second instance, against the judgment of which on appeal it is possible to bring an appeal on a point of law, as provided for in the Polish Code of Civil Procedure, a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, or is the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court), which has jurisdiction to hear appeals on a point of law, such a court?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30.