do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-120/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Curdt-Christiansen v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests — Request for revision of the place of origin — Concept of centre of interests — Change of residence of a family member — Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for revision of the place of origin — Exceptional nature of the revision)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: remuneration of work, residence








C_2015262EN.01003902.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/39





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Curdt-Christiansen v Parliament
(Case F-120/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Article 7(3) and Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Fixing of the place of origin and the centre of interests - Request for revision of the place of origin - Concept of centre of interests - Change of residence of a family member - Period elapsed between the amendment of the centre of interests and the request for revision of the place of origin - Exceptional nature of the revision))
(2015/C 262/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Caspar Curdt-Christiansen (Perl, Germany) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Parliament rejecting the applicant’s request that his place of origin be changed to Larnaca (Cyprus) and the centre of his interests to Singapore, instead of Montreal (Canada), following his transfer to the European Parliament.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Curdt-Christiansen to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 57.
Case F-129/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Dybman v EEAS (Civil Service — EEAS staff — Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Disciplinary penalty — Criminal proceedings in progress at the time of the adoption of the disciplinary penalty — Identical facts submitted to the Appointing Authority and to the criminal court — Breach of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disciplinary proceedings, pension scheme, severance pay








C_2015262EN.01004101.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/41





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Dybman v EEAS
(Case F-129/14) (1)

((Civil Service - EEAS staff - Officials - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary penalty - Criminal proceedings in progress at the time of the adoption of the disciplinary penalty - Identical facts submitted to the Appointing Authority and to the criminal court - Breach of Article 25 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations))
(2015/C 262/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Pierre Dybman (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS to remove the applicant from his post without reducing his pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European External Action Service to remove Mr Dybman from his post without reducing his pension rights;










2.


Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Dybman.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015, p. 61.
Case T-349/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01007901.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/79






Action brought on 30 June 2015 — CG v OHIM — Perry Ellis International Group (P PRO PLAYER)
(Case T-349/15)
(2015/C 294/94)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: CG verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: T. Körber, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Limited (Nassau, Bahamas)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark in black and white containing the word elements ‘P PRO PLAYER’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 89  764
         

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 2439/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-124/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Petsch v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Crèche and after-school centre staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS that entered into force on 1 January 2014 — Regulation No 1023/2013 — Increase in working hours — Additional monthly amount — Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure — Hierarchy of norms — General implementing provisions of Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 of the annex to the CEOS — Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: bonus payment, child care, contract staff, pay rise, working time








C_2015262EN.01004001.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/40





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Petsch v Commission
(Case F-124/14) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Crèche and after-school centre staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations and of the CEOS that entered into force on 1 January 2014 - Regulation No 1023/2013 - Increase in working hours - Additional monthly amount - Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure - Hierarchy of norms - General implementing provisions of Article 110(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 2 of the annex to the CEOS - Articles 27 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union))
(2015/C 262/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Olivier Petsch (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, D. Verbeke and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

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

Re:

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Petsch to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 7, 12/1/2015, p. 59.
Case T-351/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Papapanagiotou v Parlement
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, furniture industry, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2015311EN.01004901.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/49





Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Papapanagiotou v Parlement
(Case T-351/15)
(2015/C 311/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Papapanagiotou AVEEA (Serres, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision D(2015)12887 of 27 April 2015 of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Infrastructure and Logistics, whereby the tender submitted by the applicant for Lots 1, 2 and 4 of tendering procedure ‘Office Furniture’ No INLO.AO-2012-017-LUX-UAGBI-02 ‘for the acquisition of standard, executive and high-end office furniture and accessories’ was rejected and with which the Director-General informed the applicant that, for the evaluation of all the tenders in the above tender procedure, he had not taken into consideration one of the award criteria specified in the tender documents;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful, due to the exclusion of the ‘construction (resistance to breakage, abrasion, scratching and decolouration)’ award subcriterion during the tender procedure, which violates the tender specifications, Articles 110(1) and 113(1) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the European Union (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the general principles of equal treatment and transparency.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a failure of the contracting authority to state reasons, namely the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tenders, in violation of Article 113(2) of the Financial Regulation, Article 161(3) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation’), Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 296 TFUE.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of transparency according to Article 102 of the Financial Regulation and Article 15(3) TFUE, as the contracting authority failed to provide information and evidence on whether the samples provided by the tenders for the re-evaluation of the tenders were identical to the samples originally evaluated in the first evaluation procedure that was subsequently cancelled.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7655 — Berkshire Hathaway/The Duracell Business) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity storage device, energy industry, holding company, insurance company, merger control, rail transport








C_2015214EN.01001301.xml










30.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 214/13





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.7655 — Berkshire Hathaway/The Duracell Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2015/C 214/09)






1.


On 23 June 2015, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (‘Berkshire Hathaway’, United States) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the worldwide business of Duracell International Inc. (the ‘Duracell Business’) from The Procter & Gamble Company (the ‘P&G’, United States) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Berkshire Hathaway: holding company owning subsidiaries that engage in a number of diverse business activities, including insurance and reinsurance, freight rail transportation, utilities and energy finance, manufacturing, services and retailing,
—   for the Duracell Business: the worldwide business of manufacturing and supplying primary and rechargeable batteries currently carried out by P&G.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.7655 — Berkshire Hathaway/The Duracell Business, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case C-575/14 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme — Termination of the contract by the European Commission — Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — Distortion of evidence in the file — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder — Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing, indemnification, project of common interest, termination of a contract








C_2015294EN.01001602.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/16






Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
(Case C-575/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Contract relating to European Union financial support for a project in the context of the ‘eContent’ programme - Termination of the contract by the European Commission - Payment of amounts not paid and compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant - Distortion of evidence in the file - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded as to the remainder - Application to amend the decision of the General Court of the European Union on costs - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2015/C 294/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: M. Sfyri and I. Ampazis, dikigoroi)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


Dismisses the appeal,










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case F-43/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Centurione v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Social security — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Setting of the degree of partial permanent invalidity — Report of the Medical Committee — Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure — Absolute bar to proceeding — Lack of concordance between the action and the claim — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, disabled person, occupational accident, personal accident insurance, social security, staff regulations (EU)








C_2015262EN.01004102.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/41





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Centurione v Commission
(Case F-43/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Setting of the degree of partial permanent invalidity - Report of the Medical Committee - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceeding - Lack of concordance between the action and the claim - Inadmissibility))
(2015/C 262/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fernando Centurione (Nivelles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission recognising only a partial rate of permanent invalidity of 2 % following the accident at work suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 29.
Case T-355/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015294EN.01007902.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/79






Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Alpex Pharma v OHIM — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)
(Case T-355/15)
(2015/C 294/95)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Pleasanton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ASTEX’ — Application for registration No 1 0 8 05  281
         

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 April 2015 in Case R 593/2014-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, frozen product, fruit, fruit product, pasteurisation








C_2015214EN.01000401.xml










30.6.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 214/4





Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2015/C 214/04)
Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 53, the following paragraph is inserted after the existing text under ‘General’:

‘Pasteurisation is not admissible in this Chapter, with the exception of:






—


dried fruits and nuts of this Chapter;










—


provisionally preserved fruits and nuts of heading 0812;










—


frozen fruits and nuts of heading 0811.




Sterilised fruits and nuts are excluded from this Chapter (heading 2008 in general).’


(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.
Case F-94/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, invalidity of an election, workers' representation








C_2015294EN.01008302.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/83






Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
(Case F-94/15)
(2015/C 294/101)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s questioning the result of the EEAS Staff Committee elections.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 23 April 2015 validating the EEAS Staff Committee elections, the result of which was published on 17 March 2015;










—


order the EEAS to pay the costs.
Case T-345/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Modas Cristal v OHIM — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01006101.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/61





Action brought on 30 June 2015 — Modas Cristal v OHIM — Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama (KRISTAL)
(Case T-345/15)
(2015/C 302/76)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Modas Cristal, SL (Santa Lucía, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zorlu Tekstil Ürünleri Pazarlama Anonim Sirketi (Denizli, Turkey)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘KRISTAL’ — Application for registration No 10 574 473

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 341/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision on the ground that the use of the Spanish mark No 2 569 089 ‘MODAS CRISTAL’ for services in Class 35 has been demonstrated and that the new Community trade mark application is incompatible with the Spanish marks No 2 569 089 ‘MODAS CRISTAL’, for services in Class 35, and No 2 763 821 ‘home CRISTAL’, for goods in Class 24;










—


order OHIM and any interveners supporting it to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-87/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 — EI v Council
Date: 2015-06-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, hospital expenses, interest








C_2015262EN.01004403.xml










10.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/44





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 — EI v Council
(Case F-87/14) (1)

(2015/C 262/62)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014, p. 49.