do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-223/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Morton’s of Chicago v OHIM — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01002002.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/20





Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Morton’s of Chicago v OHIM — Mortons the Restaurant (MORTON’S)
(Case T-223/15)
(2015/C 228/25)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Morton’s of Chicago, Inc. (Chicago, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mortons the Restaurant Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MORTON’S’ — Community trade mark registration No 3 951 291

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2015 in Case R 46/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Respondent to pay the Proprietor’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-791/14: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 — Bensarsa v Commission and EDPS
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, data transmission, dissemination of information, personal data








C_2015205EN.01004301.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/43





Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 — Bensarsa v Commission and EDPS
(Case T-791/14) (1)

(2015/C 205/59)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case F-68/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — ZZ v Frontex
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, servant (EU), staff assessment








C_2015245EN.01004901.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/49





Action brought on 27 April 2015 — ZZ v Frontex
(Case F-68/15)
(2015/C 245/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2009 and the claim for damages for the non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the appraisal report of 4 July 2014 notified to the applicant on 12 July 2014, in so far as it amends the initial report;










—


order Frontex to pay the applicant EUR 4  000 by way of damages;










—


order Frontex to pay the costs.
Opinion 1/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice, Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: accession to an agreement, interpretation of the law, personal data, traveller








C_2015138EN.01002401.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/24





Request for an opinion submitted by the European Parliament pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
(Opinion 1/15)
(2015/C 138/32)
Language of the case: all the official languages

Applicant

European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and D. Moore, Agents)

Questions submitted to the Court







—


Is the envisaged agreement (1) compatible with the provisions of the Treaties (Article 16 TFEU) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Articles 7, 8 and Article 52(1)) as regards the right of individuals to protection of personal data?










—


Do Articles 82(1)(d) and 87(2)(a) TFEU constitute the appropriate legal basis for the act of the Council concluding the envisaged agreement or must that act be based on Article 16 TFEU?






(1)  Agreement between Canada and the European Union on the transfer and processing of Passenger Name Record data.
Case T-227/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, heating, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015236EN.01004301.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/43





Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)
(Case T-227/15)
(2015/C 236/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Redpur GmbH (Hayingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schiller, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Hartberg, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Redpur’ — Application No 10 934 305

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 678/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;










—


allow Community trade mark application No 10 934 305 to proceed to registration in its entirety or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;










—


order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case F-90/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2015 — Meyer v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Refusal to grant the dependent child allowance — Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child aged between 18 and 26 years receiving educational or vocational training — Education allowance — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Child attending regularly and full-time an educational establishment — Break in the studies — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: education grant, health service, parental allowance, remuneration of work, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015198EN.01005002.xml










15.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/50





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2015 — Meyer v Commission
(Case F-90/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Refusal to grant the dependent child allowance - Article 2(3)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Child aged between 18 and 26 years receiving educational or vocational training - Education allowance - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Child attending regularly and full-time an educational establishment - Break in the studies - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2015/C 198/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ronald Meyer (Tallinn, Estonia) (represented by: H.-R. Ilting, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, firstly, to annul the decision not to grant the applicant the dependent child allowance from 1 September 2013 because his child no longer receives ‘educational or vocational training’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of Officials and, secondly, to order his employer to continue to grant him that allowance and to reimburse him for all medical expenses for his child retroactively from 1 September 2013.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


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






(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014, p. 39.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015138EN.01000101.xml










27.4.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/1





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

(2015/C 138/01)

Last publication


OJ C 127, 20.4.2015


Past publications


OJ C 118, 13.4.2015


OJ C 107, 30.3.2015


OJ C 96, 23.3.2015


OJ C 89, 16.3.2015


OJ C 81, 9.3.2015


OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-581/14: Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 —Vierling v OHIM — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2015205EN.01003301.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/33





Order of the General Court of 27 April 2015 —Vierling v OHIM — IP Leanware (BRAINCUBE)
(Case T-581/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 205/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yvonne Vierling (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: IP Leanware (Issoire, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2014 (Case R 1486/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Yvonne Vierling and IP Leanware.

Operative part of the order







1)


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2)


Ms Yvonne Vierling shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.






(1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
Case C-193/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Syria, civil society, political system, repression, violence








C_2015205EN.01002401.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/24





Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union
(Case C-193/15 P)
(2015/C 205/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11 Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union;










—


Annul the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later insofar as they apply to the Appellant;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the Appellant invokes two grounds.
First, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to apply a presumption that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, and the General Court failed to apply the correct test, viz., whether the established facts amounted to a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime.
Second, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the evidence relevant to the question whether the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, which, had it not been so distorted, demonstrated that the Appellant did not support or benefit from the regime.
Had the General Court not applied the presumption, and/or had it applied the correct test, and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later.
Case T-211/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Claudio Necci against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission
Date: 2015-04-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: duties of civil servants, legality, right to justice, transfer of pension rights








C_2015205EN.01003801.xml










22.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/38





Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Claudio Necci against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission

(Case T-211/15 P)
(2015/C 205/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Claudio Necci (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Annul the order of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission;










—


Refer the matter back to the European Civil Service Tribunal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissed the action for annulment brought by the applicant on the ground of inadmissibility which it classified as ‘manifest’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the time-limit for bringing proceedings under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations started to run from receipt of the proposal for the bonus loading of the annuities and not from its acceptance by the member of staff.