do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-222/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, chemical industry, clothing industry, education, electrical equipment, metal product, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01002001.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/20





Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
(Case T-222/15)
(2015/C 228/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 275

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 1933/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-71/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v ECDC
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, report, staff assessment








C_2015245EN.01005001.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/50





Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v ECDC
(Case F-71/15)
(2015/C 245/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the appeal assessor’s decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report in respect of 2013.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the appeal assessor’s decision establishing the definitive version of the applicant’s staff report in respect of 2013;










—


order the ECDC to pay the costs.
Case F-72/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2015279EN.01005501.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/55






Action brought on 4 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-72/15)
(2015/C 279/70)
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

Annulment of the proposal to transfer the applicant’s pension rights to 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







—


Declare unlawful and therefore inapplicable Article 9 of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;










—


Annul the decision of 26 May 2014, accepted on 11 July 2014, to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the EU institutions, in accordance with the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-225/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — QuaMa Quality Management v OHIM — Microchip Technology (medialbo)
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01002101.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/21





Action brought on 4 May 2015 — QuaMa Quality Management v OHIM — Microchip Technology (medialbo)
(Case T-225/15)
(2015/C 228/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, United States of America)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘medialbo’ — Application No 11 454 766

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 February 2015 in Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-220/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, chemical industry, metal product, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, teaching, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01001901.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/19





Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
(Case T-220/15)
(2015/C 228/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 143

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2015 in Case R 1424/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/745 of 4 May 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hollandse geitenkaas (PGI))
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, semi-soft cheese








L_2015119EN.01000101.xml










12.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 119/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/745
of 4 May 2015
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Hollandse geitenkaas (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Netherlands' application to register the name ‘Hollandse geitenkaas’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Hollandse geitenkaas’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Hollandse geitenkaas’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name referred to in the first paragraph identifies a product in Class 1.3. Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 May 2015.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 443, 11.12.2014, p. 11.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015146EN.01000101.xml










4.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 146/1





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

(2015/C 146/01)

Last publication


OJ C 138, 27.4.2015


Past publications


OJ C 127, 20.4.2015


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

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-203/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data collection, data protection, fight against crime, personal data, protection of privacy








C_2015221EN.01000501.xml










6.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen
(Case C-203/15)
(2015/C 221/06)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tele2 Sverige AB

Defendant: Post- och telestyrelsen

Questions referred







1)


Is a general obligation to retain traffic data covering all persons, all means of electronic communication and all traffic data without any distinctions, limitations or exceptions for the purpose of combating crime (as described [below under points 1-6]) compatible with Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC (1), taking account of Articles 7, 8 and 15(1) of the Charter?










2)


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, may the retention nevertheless be permitted where:






a)


access by the national authorities to the retained data is determined as [described below under paragraphs 7-24], and










b)


security requirements are regulated as [described below under paragraphs 26-31], and










c)


all relevant data are to be retained for six months, calculated as from the day the communication is ended, and subsequently deleted as [described below under paragraphs 25]?










(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).
Case T-229/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Banking Authority
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, banking, damages, information technology, infringement of EU law, temporary employment








C_2015262EN.01003102.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/31





Action brought on 4 May 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v European Banking Authority
(Case T-229/15)
(2015/C 262/42)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: I. Ambazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers)

Defendant: European Banking Authority (EBA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the EBA which was communicated to the applicants by letter dated 02/03/2015 from the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority, whereby the EBA rejected the applicants’ tender with respect to Lot 1 within the framework of the restricted tendering procedure 2014/S 158 283576 (EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT), titled ‘Supply of interim staff, Lot No 1: Supply of interim staff for Information Technology’;










—


order the EBA to compensate the applicants for the loss of the opportunity to be ranked in first place in Lot 1 of the EBA/2014/06/OPS/SER/RT framework agreement, which the applicants estimate ex aequo et bono at three hundred thousand euros (EUR 3 00  000), with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment or such other sum as the General Court deems appropriate; and










—


order the EBA to pay the applicants’ costs in full.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


The first plea claims a breach by the EBA of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with respect to the assessment of the applicants’ technical tender.










2.


The second plea claims an infringement of the contractual documents and of EU law in respect that there were manifest errors of assessment.
Case C-207/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015262EN.01000301.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/3





Appeal brought on 4 May 2015 by Nissan Jidosha KK against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2015 in Case T-572/12: Nissan Jidosha KK v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-207/15 P)
(2015/C 262/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Nissan Jidosha KK (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister, D. Cañadas Arcas, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Set aside the decision of the General Court of 4 March 2015 (Case T-572/12);










—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2469/2011-1);










—


Order OHIM to pay the Appellant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 47 of Community Trade Mark Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), (‘CTMR’). In particular, it erred in holding that Article 47 does not permit sequential requests for renewal. Incidental to its erroneous interpretation of Art 47 CTMR the General Court erred in its interpretation of Art 48 CTMR in holding that it applied only to the sign of the Community Trade Mark.






a.


The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court is inconsistent.










b.


The interpretation of Art 47(3) by the General Court calls for de facto surrender of part of the mark in terms contrary to those provided for under Art 50 CTMR.










c.


The requirement for legal certainty called for by the General Court arises from the actions taken by OHIM. It is not inherent to the interpretation of Art 47(3) given by the General Court and legal certainty is equally possible under the Appellant’s interpretation. In the present case, the actions of OHIM were carried out on the basis that the mark had been surrendered, which the General Court held was an error of law.










d.


The interpretation of Art 47(3) advanced by the Appellant is not precluded by the wording of the Article.










e.


The interpretation of Art 48 wrongly concludes that Article is concerned only with the sign of which the Community trade mark is composed.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1
Case T-25/14: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2015 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air freight rate, fixing of prices, infringement of EU law, powers of the institutions (EU), provision of services








C_2015213EN.01004101.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/41





Order of the General Court of 4 May 2015 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-25/14) (1)

(2015/C 213/67)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
Case C-204/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Latspas
Date: 2015-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, customs territory (EU), customs union, customs valuation, free circulation, import








C_2015228EN.01000602.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 4 May 2015 — Valsts ieņēmumu dienests v SIA Latspas
(Case C-204/15)
(2015/C 228/08)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

The other party to the proceedings being: SIA Latspas

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the method laid down in that article is also applicable when the import of the goods and their release for free circulation in the customs territory of the Community took place as a consequence of the fact that during the process of transit the goods were removed from customs supervision, the goods concerned being goods liable to import duties, and the goods were not sold for export to the customs territory of the Community but for export outside the Community?










2.


Should the expression ‘sequentially’ used in Article 30(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, in the light of the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union read together with the principle that reasons must be stated for administrative measures, be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be able to conclude that the applicable method is that set out in Article 31 of the regulation, the customs authorities are under an obligation to state in all administrative measures why in those specific circumstances the methods for determination of customs value of goods set out in Articles 29 and 30 cannot be used?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.