do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-360/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission (Appeal — Approximation of laws — Directive 2009/48/EC — Toy safety — Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys — Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances — Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, health policy, product safety, safety standard, toxic substance, toy industry








C_2015294EN.01001601.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/16






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
(Case C-360/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Approximation of laws - Directive 2009/48/EC - Toy safety - Limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosatable substances in toys - Commission decision not to approve in full the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances - Proof of a higher level of protection for human health offered by the national provisions))
(2015/C 294/20)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, acting as Agents, and by U. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Mihaylova, M. Patakia and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.
Case T-374/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015302EN.01006402.xml










14.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 302/64





Action brought on 9 July 2015 — VM Vermögens-Management v OHIM — DAT Vermögensmanagement (Vermögensmanufaktur)
(Case T-374/15)
(2015/C 302/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: VM Vermögens-Management GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DAT Vermögensmanagement GmbH (Baldham, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Vermögensmanufaktur’ — Community trade mark No 8 770 042

Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 April 2015 in Case R 418/2014-5

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 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-153/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 7(2) — Family reunification — Integration measures — National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State — Costs of such an exam — Compatibility)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, examination, family migration, integration of migrants, language teaching, law of states, residence permit








C_2015294EN.01000801.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/8






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken v K, A
(Case C-153/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 7(2) - Family reunification - Integration measures - National legislation requiring the family members of a third country national residing lawfully in that Member State to pass a civic integration exam in order to enter the territory of that Member State - Costs of such an exam - Compatibility))
(2015/C 294/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Defendant: K, A

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as meaning that Member States may require third country nationals to pass a civic integration examination, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which consists in an assessment of basic knowledge both of the language of the Member State concerned and of its society and which entails the payment of various costs, before authorising that national’s entry into and residence in the territory of the Member State for the purposes of family reunification, provided that the conditions of application of such a requirement do not make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to family reunification. In circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, in so far as they do not allow regard to be had to special circumstances objectively forming an obstacle to the applicants passing the examination and in so far as they set the fees relating to such an examination at too high a level, those conditions make the exercise of the right to family reunification impossible or excessively difficult.


(1)  
            OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.
Case T-89/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark NANU — Earlier Community word mark NAMMU — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gift item, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01002901.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/29






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NANU)
(Case T-89/11) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark NANU - Earlier Community word mark NAMMU - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 279/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann and T. Boddien, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2010 (Case R 641/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Vincci Hoteles, SA and Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.
Case C-144/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș — Romania) — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 273 and 287 — Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes — Whether veterinary services are taxable — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, principle of legal certainty, provision of services, tax collection, tax exemption, veterinary medicine








C_2015294EN.01000702.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Maramureș — Romania) — Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș
(Case C-144/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 273 and 287 - Obligation to register a taxable person for VAT purposes - Whether veterinary services are taxable - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations))
(2015/C 294/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Maramureș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cabinet Medical Veterinar Dr. Tomoiagă Andrei

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj Napoca prin Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Maramureș

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The first paragraph of Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, does not require Member States to register of their own motion a taxable person for the purposes of collecting value added tax solely on the basis of tax returns, other than those relating to value added tax, where those returns would have made it possible to establish that the taxable person had exceeded the exemption threshold for value added tax.










2.


The principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations do not preclude a tax authority from deciding that veterinary services are subject to value added tax in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, provided that that decision is based on clear rules and the practice of that authority was not such as to create in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic operator a reasonable expectation that value added tax would not be applied to those services, that being a matter for the referring court to establish.






(1)  
            OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1135 of 9 July 2015 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (กาแฟดอยตช้าง (Kafae Doi Chaang) (PGI))
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, coffee, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2015185EN.01000501.xml










14.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 185/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2015/1135
of 9 July 2015
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (กาแฟดอยตช้าง (Kafae Doi Chaang) (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, Thailand's application to register the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘กาแฟดอยตช้าง’ (Kafae Doi Chaang) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. — Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices, etc.), 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, 9 July 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 49, 21.2.2014, p. 8.

(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).
Joined Cases T-98/13 and T-99/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark Camomilla — Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the goods — No damage to reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015279EN.01003201.xml










24.8.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/32






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2015 — CMT v OHIM — Camomilla (Camomilla)
(Joined Cases T-98/13 and T-99/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark Camomilla - Earlier national figurative mark CAMOMILLA - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the goods - No damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 279/39)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: CMT Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, R. Floridia, M. Franzoni and G. Rubino, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Camomilla SpA (Buccinasco, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and M. Mussi, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 November 2012 (cases R 1615/2011-1 and R 1617/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between CMT — Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) and Camomilla SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Compagnia manifatture tessili Srl (CMT Srl) to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.
Case C-229/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 98/59/EC — Article 1(1)(a) — Collective redundancies — Concept of ‘worker’ — Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company — Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer)
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: board of directors, collective dismissal, company with share capital, remuneration of work, traineeship, wage earner








C_2015294EN.01001101.xml










7.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Verden (Germany)) — Ender Balkaya v Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH
(Case C-229/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/59/EC - Article 1(1)(a) - Collective redundancies - Concept of ‘worker’ - Member of the board of directors of a limited liability company - Person working under a scheme for training and reintegration into the labour market and benefitting from a public training grant but not receiving remuneration from the employer))
(2015/C 294/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Verden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ender Balkaya

Defendant: Kiesel Abbruch- und Recycling Technik GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998, on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national law or practice that does not take into account, in the calculation provided for by that provision of the number of workers employed, a member of the board of directors of a capital company, such as the director in question in the main proceedings, who performs his duties under the direction and subject to the supervision of another body of that company, receives remuneration in return for the performance of his duties and does not himself own any shares in the company.










2.


Article 1(1)(a) of Directive 98/59 must be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to regard as a worker for the purposes of that provision a person, such as the one in question in the main proceedings, who, while not receiving remuneration from his employer, performs real work within the undertaking in the context of a traineeship — with financial support from, and the recognition of, the public authority responsible for the promotion of employment — in order to acquire or improve skills or complete vocational training.






(1)  
            OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.
Case T-366/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Viara Todorova Androva against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in Case F-78/12, Todorova Androva v Council
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: equal treatment, promotion, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2015337EN.01001602.xml










12.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/16





Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by Viara Todorova Androva against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in Case F-78/12, Todorova Androva v Council
(Case T-366/15 P)
(2015/C 337/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Set aside the judgment of 29 April 2015 in Case F-78/12 and the General Court itself rule in the action;










—


In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;










—


Order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) took the view that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union did not permit account to be taken, for the purposes of entry on the list of promotable officials, the seniority acquired as a member of the temporary staff.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the case was not covered by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the judgment of 8 September 2011 in Rosado Santana (C-177/10, ECR, EU:C:2011:557), but by that in the order of 7 March 2013 in Rivas Montes (C-178/12, EU:C:2013:150).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an error of law, since the CST took the view that the plea alleging an infringement of the principle of equal treatment was inadmissible since it did not state the exact names of the candidates promoted in the place of the applicant.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the plea alleging infringement of the duty of care was inadmissible since there were discrepancies between the claim and the application.
Special Report No 7/2015 ‘The EU police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results’
Date: 2015-07-09
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU police mission, regional security, rule of law








C_2015224EN.01000301.xml










9.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/3





Special Report No 7/2015 ‘The EU police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results’
(2015/C 224/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 7/2015 ‘The EU police mission in Afghanistan: mixed results’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Publications (PUB)




12, rue Alcide De Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.