do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-182/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: conflict of interest, disclosure of information, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2015262EN.01002901.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/29





Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
(Case T-182/15)
(2015/C 262/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the European Parliament of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 in the tendering procedure for PE/ITEC-ITS14;










—


declare that the contract(s) with other tenderers due to this exclusion decisions is (are) null and void;










—


order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the infringement by the European Parliament of the principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment as contained in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of the exclusion criteria as contained in article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of article 158.3 of the Rules of Application, the infringement by the European Parliament of its own Tender Specifications for ITS14, thus invalidating the Decisions of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14.
In the primary part of the first and only plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Parliament has failed to correctly apply its own Tender Specifications for ITS14 and the general procedural requirement of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and has infringed article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.
In the secondary part of the first and only plea in law (subsidiary order), the applicant claims that the European Parliament has violated the principles of transparency, proportionality and equality of treatment (non-discrimination) as laid down in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.
Case C-166/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer piracy, copyright, software








C_2015205EN.01002101.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija (Latvia) lodged on 13 April 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs
(Case C-166/15)
(2015/C 205/29)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

Party to the main proceedings


Criminal proceedings against: Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

Other parties in the case: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokuratūra, Microsoft Corporation

Questions referred







1.


Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, does a person who may rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of the computer program have the right to resell that computer program on a non-original disk to a third person, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of Directive 2009/24?






(1)  Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2015118EN.01000101.xml










13.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/1





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

(2015/C 118/01)

Last publication


OJ C 107, 30.3.2015


Past publications


OJ C 96, 23.3.2015


OJ C 89, 16.3.2015


OJ C 81, 9.3.2015


OJ C 73, 2.3.2015


OJ C 65, 23.2.2015


OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF) (Case E-8/15)
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU law - national law, Iceland, bank, bank deposit, investment protection, law of banking








C_2015366EN.01001001.xml










5.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/10





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF)
(Case E-8/15)
(2015/C 366/07)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited v the Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:






1.


Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?










2.


Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?










3.


Is it compatible with Article 11 of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, that a national deposit guarantee scheme (i.e. the TIF), which makes payments under guarantee, acquires rights in excess of its right of subrogation of depositors' claims in liquidation proceedings for an amount equal to its payments from the fund?
Case T-637/14: Order of the General Court of 13 April 2015 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01004203.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/42





Order of the General Court of 13 April 2015 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)
(Case T-637/14) (1)

(2015/C 205/58)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
Case T-179/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, film industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015190EN.01002601.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/26






Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Lions Gate Entertainment v OHIM (DIRTY DANCING)
(Case T-179/15)
(2015/C 190/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, United States) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor, and J. Hill, Barrister)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 12 036 265

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2015 in Case R 2252/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1) (c) in conjunction with Article 7(1) (b) and Article 7 (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-181/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, tendering








C_2015262EN.01002801.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/28





Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
(Case T-181/15)
(2015/C 262/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament of unknown date to launch the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8;










—


annul any decision that the European Parliament may have taken with regard to the further course of this negotiated procedure without publication notice NPE-15.8;










—


declare that the contract(s) that are possibly closed based on the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice for NPE-15.8, is (are) null and void;










—


order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 102 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 103 of the Financial Regulation, of Article 104.2 of the Financial Regulation and of Article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application, thus invalidating the Decision of unknown date, to launch the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice.
According to the applicants, the European Parliament wrongfully and illegally used the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice, whereby it should have been stated that this procedure was an exceptional procedure of which the use had to be legally justified (also given the obligation of the European Parliament to ensure that all public procurement contracts are be put out to tender on the broadest possible basis, cfr. article 102.2 of the Financial Regulation). Such justification, so the applicants claim, was not given by the European Parliament, nor were there any reasons of extreme urgency brought about by unforeseeable events not attributable to the European Parliament present (as required for the application of article 134.1 (c) of the Rules of Application).
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF) (Case E-9/15)
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU law - national law, Iceland, bank, bank deposit, investment protection, law of banking








C_2015366EN.01001101.xml










5.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/11





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 13 April 2015 in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF)
(Case E-9/15)
(2015/C 366/08)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 13 April 2015 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court, Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of De Nederlandsche Bank NV v the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund (TIF) on the following questions:






1.


Is it compatible with the provisions of the EEA Agreement, and in particular with Article 7(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, in the event of a systemic crisis, that the obligations of a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme should be restricted to its assets at the time when deposits become unavailable in the sense defined in Article 1(3) of the Directive and the assets are not sufficient to meet the claims of each depositor for up to EUR 20 000?










2.


Is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes that following a systemic crisis, a Member State enacts legislation or issues regulatory acts authorising a pre-funded deposit guarantee scheme to establish a new department or account for the collection of premiums and to decide that those premiums are to be channelled into the new department or account for the purpose of building up a fund intended exclusively to meet possible future shocks and not to be available for the payment of earlier obligations?










3.


Is it compatible with Article 11 of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, that a national deposit guarantee scheme (i.e. the TIF), which makes payments under guarantee, acquires rights in excess of its right of subrogation of depositors’ claims in liquidation proceedings for an amount equal to its payments from the fund?
Case C-167/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2015 — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, help for victims, indemnification, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU








C_2015245EN.01000301.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 13 April 2015 — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-167/15)
(2015/C 245/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2004/80/EC (1) (Article 12(2)) be interpreted as precluding national implementing legislation which refers, with regard to the payment of compensation chargeable to the State, to special legal provisions in favour of victims of crime, but does not grant to victims of ordinary violent crimes access to a substantive system of compensation of general scope and governs only procedural aspects, in cross-border cases, of access to that system?










2.


Must Directive 2004/80/EC (Article 12(2)) therefore be interpreted as requiring a substantive system of protection of general scope, provided by the State, or in any event laying down a minimum level of such protection and, if that is so, what are the criteria for determining that level?






(1)  Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15).
Case C-169/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
Date: 2015-04-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, copyright, law of states








C_2015228EN.01000401.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/4





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
(Case C-169/15)
(2015/C 228/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Benelux Gerechtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Montis Design BV

Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV

Questions referred







1)


Is the term of protection referred to in Article 10, in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 93/98/EEC (the Term of Protection Directive) (1) applicable to rights of copyright that were originally protected by national copyright law but which lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied (in due time), more specifically because a maintenance declaration, as referred to in Article 21(3) of the Uniform Benelux Law on Designs and Models (old version), had not been filed (in due time)?










2)


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
Must the Term of Protection Directive be construed as precluding a rule of national legislation under which the copyright in a work of applied art that lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied is deemed to have lapsed permanently?










3)


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
If, under national legislation, the copyright in question is to be considered to revive or to be revived at a certain time, from what date does such revival occur?






(1)  Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 1993 L 290, p. 9), now Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the terms of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12).