do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-382/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — C.E. Franzen, H.D. Giesen, F. van den Berg v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 13(2) and 17 — Casual work in a Member State other than the State of residence — Legislation applicable — Refusal to grant family benefits and reduction of the old-age pension by the State of residence)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family benefit, free movement of workers, migrant worker, private international law, residence, temporary employment








C_2015205EN.01000401.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/4





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — C.E. Franzen, H.D. Giesen, F. van den Berg v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
(Case C-382/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Articles 13(2) and 17 - Casual work in a Member State other than the State of residence - Legislation applicable - Refusal to grant family benefits and reduction of the old-age pension by the State of residence))
(2015/C 205/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: C.E. Franzen, H.D. Giesen, F. van den Berg

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that a resident of a Member State, who comes within the scope of that regulation, as amended, and who works for several days per month on the basis of an on-call contract in the territory of another Member State, is subject to the legislation of the State of employment both on the days on which he performs the employment activities and on the days on which he does not.










2.


Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, read in conjunction with Article 13(1) of that regulation, must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as not precluding a migrant worker, who is subject to the legislation of the State of employment, from receiving, by virtue of national legislation of the Member State of residence, an old-age pension and family benefits from the latter State.






(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case F-65/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, dismissal, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2015221EN.01002902.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/29





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
(Case F-65/15)
(2015/C 221/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

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

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Action for annulment of the defendant’s decision of 4 June 2014 to terminate the applicant’s contract of employment pursuant to a clause in that contract of employment.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


set aside the determination of OHIM, which was communicated by letter from OHIM dated 4 June 2014, to terminate the applicant’s contract as a temporary member of staff at OHIM with a notice period of six months, which began upon expiry of the validity of the reserve list of competition EPSO OHIM/AST/02/13;










—


order OHIM to pay to the applicant damages of an appropriate amount at the discretion of the Tribunal for the non-material damage arising from the decision of OHIM referred to in paragraph 1 above;










—


in the event that the date of the judgment or the definitive conclusion of the present proceedings is after the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment by OHIM: order OHIM to reinstate the applicant with full restoration of her career advancements which she would have achieved upon continuous further employment and order OHIM to compensate the applicant fully for the material damage suffered by her, in particular by paying all outstanding salary and all other material damage incurred by the applicant as a result of OHIM’s unlawful conduct (after deduction of unemployment benefit received);










—


in the alternative, in the event that, in the present situation, for legal or practical reasons the applicant is not reinstated or re-employed under the same conditions as hitherto, order OHIM to pay the applicant compensation for the material damage caused to the applicant by the unlawful termination of her employment, corresponding to the difference between her actual lifetime earnings and the lifetime earnings the applicant would have achieved if the contract had remained in force, taking into account pension benefits and other entitlements;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.
Case T-214/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01004001.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/40





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)
(Case T-214/15)
(2015/C 205/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zymara’ — Application for registration No 9 982 745

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2015 in Case R 550/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’;










—


The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing;










—


The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree;










—


The Board of Appeal has put too much wait on the word beginnings within the visual comparison.
Case F-61/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, staff assessment, work contract








C_2015221EN.01002702.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/27





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
(Case F-61/15)
(2015/C 221/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the AECE’s decision of 25 September 2014 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-182/14: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Meccanica (ELIKA)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, engine, pump, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01004202.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/42





Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Marzocchi Pompe v OHIM — Settima Meccanica (ELIKA)
(Case T-182/14) (1)

(2015/C 205/57)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.
Case T-352/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition — Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law — Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list — Burden of proof — Comparative assessment — Equal treatment — Stability in the composition of the selection board — Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Distortion of the facts and evidence — Action for damages — Decision as to costs)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bulgaria, Romania, administrator, competition (EU), damages, equal treatment, nationality, recruitment








C_2015190EN.01001401.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/14






Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — BX v Commission
(Case T-352/13 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition - Constitution of a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) of Bulgarian and Romanian citizenship in the field of Law - Selection board’s decision not to include the appellant on the reserve list - Burden of proof - Comparative assessment - Equal treatment - Stability in the composition of the selection board - Fifth paragraph of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Distortion of the facts and evidence - Action for damages - Decision as to costs))
(2015/C 190/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: BX (Washington, United States) (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013, in BX v Commission (F 88/11, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:51), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr BX to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.






(1)  
            OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.
Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2009 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (OJ L 17, 22.1.2009)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: economic offence, euro, fight against crime, fraud, industrial counterfeiting, paper money








L_2015104EN.01005201.xml










23.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 104/52







Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2009 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1338/2001 laying down measures necessary for the protection of the euro against counterfeiting

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 17 of 22 January 2009
)


On page 2, Article 1(3)(b):
for:







‘(b)


at the end of paragraph 2 the following sentences shall be added:

                           “For the purpose of […]. During transportation, the counterfeit notes shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”
                        ;’
                  




read:







‘(b)


at the end of paragraph 2 the following sentences shall be added:

                           “For the purpose of […]. During transportation, the counterfeit coins shall be accompanied at all times by transport orders received for that purpose from the abovementioned authorities, institutions and bodies.”
                        ;’
                  




on page 3, Article 1(4)(b), new Article 6(1), footnote (*):
for:







‘(*)


See the framework for the detection of counterfeits and fitness sorting by credit institutions and other professional cash handlers, available on the ECB website at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/recyclingeurobanknotes2005.en.pdf”;’





read:







‘(*)


See the framework for the detection of counterfeits and fitness sorting by credit institutions and other professional cash handlers, available on the ECB website at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/cashprof/html/index.en.html”;’





on page 3, Article 1(4)(c), new Article 6(1a), footnote (**):
for:







‘(**)


The list published by the ECB is available at the following address: http://www.ecb.int/euro/cashhand/devices/results/html/index.fr.html’





read:







‘(**)


The list published by the ECB is available at the following address: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/cashprof/html/index.en.html’




.
Case C-184/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2015 — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: BusinessEurope, European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, European Trade Union Confederation, equal treatment, public service employee, social policy, temporary employment








C_2015236EN.01002501.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 23 April 2015 — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud
(Case C-184/15)
(2015/C 236/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Florentina Martínez Andrés

Respondent: Servicio Vasco de Salud

Questions referred







1.


Must clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement (1) on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in a situation of abuse arising from the use of fixed-term employment contracts, does not acknowledge that staff regulated under administrative law who are engaged on an occasional basis (personal estatutario temporal eventual) (‘occasional regulated staff’), as opposed to staff who are in precisely the same position but who are employed by a public authority under contract, have a general right to remain in post on an indefinite but not permanent basis, in other words, to hold the temporary post until it is filled in the manner prescribed by law or eliminated in accordance with legally established procedures?










2.


If the previous question is answered in the negative, must the principle of equivalence be interpreted as meaning that the national court may regard the situation of staff who are employed by a public authority under a fixed-term contract and that of occasional regulated staff as similar in cases where there has been misuse of fixed-term employment contracts, or, when assessing similarity, must the national court consider factors other than the fact that the employer is the same, the services provided are the same or similar and the contract of employment has a fixed term, such as the precise nature of the employee’s relationship, whether contractual or regulated, or the power of the public authorities to organise the way they function, which justify treating the two situations differently?






(1)  Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case C-183/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, measuring equipment, physical sciences, scientific apparatus








C_2015254EN.01000302.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 April 2015 — TSI GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen
(Case C-183/15)
(2015/C 254/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TSI GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Question referred

Is the combined nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature (1) and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that ultraviolet aerodynamic particle sizer spectrometers and handheld particle counters as described in more detail in the order fall under subheading 9027 10 10?


(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 291, p. 1.
Case C-424/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten (References for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Protection of animals during transport — Long journey between Member States and third countries — Article 14(1) — Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys — Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union — Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, carrier, cattle, goat, length of journey, sheep, supervisory body, swine, third country, transport of animals








C_2015205EN.01000501.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/5





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH v Stadt Kempten
(Case C-424/13) (1)

((References for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Protection of animals during transport - Long journey between Member States and third countries - Article 14(1) - Check to be carried out related to the journey log by the competent authority at the place of departure prior to long journeys - Applicability of that provision in regards to the stages of the journey taking place outside the territory of the European Union - Applicability of the standards fixed by that regulation to that part of the journey))
(2015/C 205/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Zuchtvieh-Export GmbH

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for transport involving a long journey for animals concerned which commences on the territory of the European Union and continues outside that territory to be authorised by the competent authority of the place of departure, the organiser of the journey must submit a journey log which, in the light of the arrangements for the journey as planned, is realistic and indicates that the provisions of that regulation will be complied with, including for the stages of the journey which are to take place in the territory of third countries, that authority being empowered, should that not be the case, to require changes to those arrangements to ensure compliance with those provisions throughout the journey.


(1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.
Case T-212/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2015198EN.01004602.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/46





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Aldi v OHIM — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet)
(Case T-212/15)
(2015/C 198/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher and N. Bertram, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miquel Alimentació Grup, SA (Vilamalla, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the word element ‘Gourmet’ — Application No 9 310 269

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2015 in Case R 314/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.