do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-383/13: Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others (Action for annulment — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission — Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, infringement of EU law, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2015205EN.01003101.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/31





Order of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Chatzianagnostou v Council and Others
(Case T-383/13) (1)

((Action for annulment - Common Foreign and Security Policy - Seconded National expert for the EULEX Kosovo mission - Decisions of a Head of Mission on disciplinary sanctions))
(2015/C 205/41)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Antonios Chatzianagnostou (Serres, Greece) (represented by: C. Makris, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and M. Bauer, acting as Agents) European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, A.-C. Simon and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and Eulex Kosovo (Pristina, Kosovo) (represented by: B. Borchardt, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Fouquet, lawyer)

Re

Action for annulment of decisions of 10 May 2013 in disciplinary cases Nos 02/2013 and 06/2013, signed by the Head of the EULEX Kosovo mission.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2)


Mr Antonios Chatzianagnostou is ordered to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and Eulex Kosovo.






(1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.
Case C-16/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A — Application of goods treated as a supply for consideration — Application of a building for an activity exempt from VAT — Taxable amount for that application — Interim interest paid during the construction of the building)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, building, purchase price








C_2015205EN.01000801.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/8





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Property Development Company NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-16/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 11A - Application of goods treated as a supply for consideration - Application of a building for an activity exempt from VAT - Taxable amount for that application - Interim interest paid during the construction of the building))
(2015/C 205/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Property Development Company NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11A(1)(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the taxable amount for the calculation of VAT on an application, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(b) thereof, of a building that the taxable person has constructed, is to be the purchase price, at the time the application is made, of buildings whose location, size and other essential characteristics are similar to those of the building in question. In that regard, it is irrelevant whether part of the purchase price is due to interest on borrowed capital.


(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case F-131/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission (Civil Service — Member of contractual staff — Remuneration — Salary statement — Confirmative in nature — Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary — No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement — Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, contract staff, equal treatment, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU), work schedule








C_2015190EN.01003301.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/33






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 April 2015 — Bensai v Commission
(Case F-131/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of contractual staff - Remuneration - Salary statement - Confirmative in nature - Failure to follow the requirements of the pre-litigation procedure - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Increase in working hours without adjustment of salary - No effect on the confirmative nature of the salary statement - Lack of equality between members of contractual staff and local staff - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2015/C 190/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: David Bensai (Müllendorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to increase the salary of the applicant, who is a member of the contractual staff, following the increase in working hours to 40 hours a week as a result of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and, in any event, manifestly unfounded.










2.


Mr Bensai shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  
            OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7578 — Ares Management/TPG/ATD) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pneumatic tyre








C_2015131EN.01000101.xml










23.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7578 — Ares Management/TPG/ATD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 131/01)
On 17 April 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 language 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 32015M7578. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-282/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX — Earlier Community word mark IGLO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, frozen product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015190EN.01001301.xml










8.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 190/13






Judgment of the General Court of 23 April 2015 — Iglotex v OHIM — Iglo Foods Group (IGLOTEX)
(Case T-282/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark IGLOTEX - Earlier Community word mark IGLO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 190/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Iglotex SA (Skórcz, Poland) (represented by: I.-M. Helbig, P. Hansmersmann and S. Rengshausen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Iglo Foods Group Ltd (Feltham, United Kingdom) (represented initially by C. Hawkes, Solicitor, and subsequently by B. Brandreth and C. Hall, Barristers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2013 (Case R 67/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Iglo Foods Group Ltd and Iglotex SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Iglotex SA to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-260/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — Sevda Aykul v Land Baden-Württemberg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/126/EC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in the case of a person having driven under the influence of narcotic substances, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, mutual recognition principle, narcotic, road safety, traffic offence








C_2015205EN.01000201.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — Sevda Aykul v Land Baden-Württemberg
(Case C-260/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/126/EC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Refusal of a Member State to recognise, in the case of a person having driven under the influence of narcotic substances, the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State))
(2015/C 205/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sevda Aykul

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) and the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State in whose territory the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State is staying temporarily is not precluded from refusing to recognise the validity of that driving licence on account of unlawful conduct on the part of its holder in the territory of the first Member State after that driving licence has been issued that results, under the national law of the first Member State, in unfitness to drive motor vehicles.










2.


A Member State which refuses to recognise the validity of a driving licence in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is competent to lay down the conditions with which the holder of a driving licence must comply in order to recover the right to drive in that Member State’s territory. It is for the referring court to examine whether, in applying its own rules, the Member State in question is not in fact refusing indefinitely to recognise a driving licence issued by another Member State. In that context, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the conditions laid down by the legislation of the first Member State, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, do not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objective of Directive 2006/126, which is to improve road safety.






(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.
Case T-202/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015198EN.01004501.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/45





Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
(Case T-202/15)
(2015/C 198/62)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 669 396

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1899/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-96/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Insurance contract — Article 4(2) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract — Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered — Borrower’s total incapacity for work — Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise)
Date: 2015-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: incapacity for work, insurance contract, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2015205EN.01000901.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes — France) — Jean-Claude Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA
(Case C-96/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Insurance contract - Article 4(2) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract - Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered - Borrower’s total incapacity for work - Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise))
(2015/C 205/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nîmes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jean-Claude Van Hove

Defendant: CNP Assurances SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that a term of an insurance contract intended to ensure that loan repayments payable to the lender will be covered in the event of the borrower’s total incapacity for work falls within the exception set out in that provision only where the referring court finds:






—


first, that, having regard to the nature, general scheme and the stipulations of the contractual framework of which it forms part, and to its legal and factual context, that term lays down an essential component of that contractual framework, and, as such, characterises it, and










—


secondly, that that term is drafted in plain, intelligible language, that is to say that it is not only grammatically intelligible to the consumer, but also that the contract sets out transparently the specific functioning of the arrangements to which the relevant term refers and the relationship between those arrangements and the arrangements laid down in respect of other contractual terms, so that that consumer is in a position to evaluate, on the basis of precise, intelligible criteria, the economic consequences for him which derive from it.






(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.