do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-240/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015236EN.01004501.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/45





Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of bars with four circles)
(Case T-240/15)
(2015/C 236/60)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of bars with four circles) — Application for registration No 12 551 867

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 March 2015 in Case R 1602/2014-1

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision because it is unlawful and infringes the legal provisions in force concerning the Community trade mark; deliver a judgment in accordance with the claims set out in the application on the basis of the sufficient intrinsic distinctiveness of the three-dimensional mark applied for; order the registration of the application for a three-dimensional Community trade mark No 12 551 867, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 of the International Classification in its entirety;










—


order the party opposing that claim to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings and to reimburse the appeal fees paid to OHIM and the corresponding expenses.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-242/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ACDA and Others v Commission
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, land transport, restriction on competition








C_2015236EN.01004502.xml










20.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/45





Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ACDA and Others v Commission
(Case T-242/15)
(2015/C 236/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Automobile Club des Avocats — ACDA (Paris, France); Organisation des Transporteurs Routiers Européens — OTRE (Bordeaux, France); Fédération française des motards en colère — FFMC (Paris); Fédération française de motocyclisme (Paris); and Union nationale des automobile clubs (Paris) (represented by: M. Lesage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare their action admissible;










—


annul Commission Notice SA.38271 of 28 October 2014 on State Aid SA.2014/N 38271, linked to the Plan for Investment in Motorways in France, published on 20 February 2015 in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the French motorway investment plan (‘MIP’) would have the effect of granting a benefit specifically to concession-holding companies operating motorways, with the assistance of public funds.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the MIP would affect competition.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging overcompensation for the expenditure incurred by concession-holding companies operating motorways, which is inconsistent with the task of general economic interest with which they are entrusted.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a barrier to trade between the Member States.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the amendments made to the MIP without a new notification having been made to the Commission since Notice SA.38271 are unlawful.
Case F-44/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Pohjanmäki v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and of the JCC — Absence of staff reports — Failure by members of the JCC to consult staff reports — Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur with the JCC and of the former assessor — Manifest error of assessment — Seniority in grade — Level of responsibilities exercised — Duty of care)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, promotion








C_2015213EN.01004401.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/44





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Pohjanmäki v Council
(Case F-44/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Respective roles of the Appointing Authority and of the JCC - Absence of staff reports - Failure by members of the JCC to consult staff reports - Compatibility of the functions of the rapporteur with the JCC and of the former assessor - Manifest error of assessment - Seniority in grade - Level of responsibilities exercised - Duty of care))
(2015/C 213/71)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jaana Pohjanmäki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, E. Rebasti and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

Re:

The application, first, to annul the Council’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 and, second, to award damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Declares that Ms Pohjanmäki is to bear half of her own costs;










3)


Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Ms Pohjanmäki.






(1)  OJ C 212, 7/7/2014, p. 46.
Case T-254/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Dyado Liben OOD (Casale Fresco)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015245EN.01003701.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/37





Action brought on 18 May 2015 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Dyado Liben OOD (Casale Fresco)
(Case T-254/15)
(2015/C 245/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen 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: Dyado Liben OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant/Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Casale Fresco’ — Application No 010 886 604

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11.03.2015 in Case R 1138/2014-4

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-559/14: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council (‘Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 — Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility’)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: biodiversity, plant breeding, plant variety right, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2015228EN.01001302.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/13





Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Ackermann Saatzucht and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-559/14) (1)

((‘Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 - Compliance measures for users from the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization in the Union - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility’))
(2015/C 228/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ackermann Saatzucht (Irlbach, Germany) and the other applicants listed in the annex to the order (represented by: P. de Jong, P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and R. Van de Westelaken, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on compliance measures for users from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization in the Union (OJ 2014 L 150, p. 59).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application of the European Seed Association (ESA) for leave to intervene.










3.


Ackermann Saatzucht GmbH & Co. KG and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex are to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Case F-11/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Dupré v EEAS (Civil service — Staff of the EEAS — Member of the temporary staff — Article 98 of the Staff Regulations — Article 2(e) of the CEOS — Contract of employment — Grading — Plea of illegality of the vacancy notice — Post at grade AD 5 open to staff from national diplomatic services and to officials of grades AD 5 to AD 14 — Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post — Judgment by default)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: administrator, damages, indemnification, staff assessment, work contract








C_2015213EN.01004202.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/42





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Dupré v EEAS
(Case F-11/14) (1)

((Civil service - Staff of the EEAS - Member of the temporary staff - Article 98 of the Staff Regulations - Article 2(e) of the CEOS - Contract of employment - Grading - Plea of illegality of the vacancy notice - Post at grade AD 5 open to staff from national diplomatic services and to officials of grades AD 5 to AD 14 - Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post - Judgment by default))
(2015/C 213/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Bruno Dupré (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the applicant’s contract in so far as it categorises him at grade AD 5 and to compensate him for the harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102 of 7/4/2014, p. 45.
Case C-226/15 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, fruit-growing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015254EN.01000702.xml










3.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/7





Appeal brought on 18 May 2015 by Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM
(Case C-226/15 P)
(2015/C 254/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 March 2015 in Case T-378/13, EU:T:2015:186, insofar as it dismisses the action brought by the appellants seeking, principally, alteration of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4;










—


Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4, so that the appeal brought by the appellants before that Board of Appeal is held to be well founded, with the consequence that their opposition to the registration of the Community trade mark application ENGLISH PINK No 8610768 must be upheld;










—


Order OHIM to pay all the costs of the appellants in relation both to the appeal and to the proceedings at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their appeal, the appellants rely on the following grounds.
First, the appellants submit that both the General Court and the Board of Appeal breached the general principle of res judicata concerning a decision on a matter between the same parties by a Community trade mark court applying Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark (CTMR) (1), as well as the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations.
Second, the appellants complain that the General Court infringed Article 65(3) of that Regulation in not altering the decision of OHIM.
Last, since, in the appellants’ view, the state of the proceedings permits the Court of Justice to give final judgment in the matter, they request that it apply the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case F-79/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (Civil service — EMCDDA staff — Temporary staff — Decision not to renew a contract of employment — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Administrative inquiry — Judgment by default — Examination of the admissibility of the application — Act adversely affecting the applicant — Inadmissibility — Allocation of costs)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, psychological harassment, servant (EU), work contract








C_2015213EN.01004201.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/42





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA
(Case F-79/13) (1)

((Civil service - EMCDDA staff - Temporary staff - Decision not to renew a contract of employment - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Administrative inquiry - Judgment by default - Examination of the admissibility of the application - Act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility - Allocation of costs))
(2015/C 213/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti and F. Pereyra, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request seeking recognition of the fact that she had been the victim of psychological harassment on the part of her line manager and, secondly, of the decision not to renew her contract and, as a result, an application for a new investigation to be conducted and for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Declares that the parties shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 31, 1/2/2014, p. 22.
Case F-78/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, indemnification, interest, monthly pay, wage determination








C_2015279EN.01005601.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/56






Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ and Others v EIB
(Case F-78/15)
(2015/C 279/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Firstly, annulment of the decisions in the pay statements for February 2015, fixing the annual salary adjustment as limited to 1,2 % for 2015 and annulment of the later statements and, in so far as necessary, the information notes which the defendant sent to the applicants on 6 and 10 February 2015. Secondly, an order that the EIB pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Declare the present action admissible and well founded, including the plea of illegality which it contains;










—


Consequently:






—


Annul the decision contained in the applicant’s pay statements for February 2015, which decision fixed the annual salary adjustment at 1,2 % for 2015 and, accordingly, annul the similar decisions contained in the later pay statements and, in so far as necessary, annul two information notes sent by the defendant to the applicants on 6 February 2015 and 10 February 2015;














—


Accordingly, order the defendant:






—


to pay to each defendant, as compensation for the material harm, (i) the balance of the salary corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2015, namely an increase of 0,4 %, for the period of 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015; (ii) the balance of the salary corresponding to the effects of application of the annual adjustment of 1,2 % for 2015 on the amount of the salaries which will be paid with effect from January 2016; (iii) default interest on the balances of the salaries due until payment in full of the sums due, the rate of the default interest to be applied must be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, increased by three points and (iv) damages in respect of the loss of purchasing power; this material loss as a whole being estimated, provisionally, for each applicant, at EUR 30  000;










—


to pay to each applicant EUR 1  000 in respect of non-material harm;














—


Order the EIB to pay all the costs.
Case F-36/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Bischoff v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Compulsory retirement — Article 23(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Retirement age — Refusal to extend the period of activity — Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations — Interest of the service)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, retirement conditions








C_2015213EN.01004301.xml










29.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/43





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Bischoff v Commission
(Case F-36/14) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Compulsory retirement - Article 23(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Retirement age - Refusal to extend the period of activity - Second paragraph of Article 52 of the Staff Regulations - Interest of the service))
(2015/C 213/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Hartwig Bischoff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Ehrbar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul the Commission’s decisions rejecting, first, the application to extend the applicant’s service and, second, confirming the applicant’s compulsory retirement on 1 June 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Declares that Mr Bischoff is to bear all of his own costs and all of the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/2014, p. 60.
Case T-48/13: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Out of the blue v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01001201.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/12





Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Out of the blue v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)
(Case T-48/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
(2015/C 228/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and I. George, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Poch and subsequently S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Meinhard Mombauer (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2012 (Case R 1656/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Out of the blue KG and Meinhard Mombauer

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Case T-30/13: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
Date: 2015-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, trade-mark law








C_2015228EN.01002504.xml










13.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/25





Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
(Case T-30/13) (1)

(2015/C 228/33)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.