do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-407/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, constitutional court, criminal procedure, jurisdiction, right to justice, termination of employment, work contract








C_2016200EN.01000501.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2015 — Ovidiu Rîpanu v Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.
(Case C-407/15)
(2016/C 200/07)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău (România)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ovidiu Rîpanu

Defendant: Compania Națională ‘Loteria Română’ S.A.
By order of 18 February 2016, the Court (Tenth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to reply to the question submitted.
Case T-433/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Bank Saderat v Conseil
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, economic sanctions, indemnification, interest








C_2015320EN.01004001.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/40





Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Bank Saderat v Conseil
(Case T-433/15)
(2015/C 320/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bank Saderat plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, and M-E. Demetriou and R. Blakeley, Barristers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


condemn the Council to pay the following sums to the applicant:






—


€ 8 8 9 06  191 in respect of material damage up until the date of this claim;










—


€ 8 7 13  285 in respect of interest on the sum in sub-paragraph (1) above plus daily interest of € 10  377 until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit;










—


a daily rate of € 54  716 in respect of material damage from the date of this claim until the end of the Claim Period;










—


interest on the total sum calculated pursuant to sub-paragraph (3) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of judgment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit;










—


€ 3 2 9 64  320 in respect of material damage from the date of the end of the Claim Period;










—


€ 1 0 00  000 in respect of non-material damage;










—


post-judgment interest on the sums in sub-paragraphs (1) to (6) above at the rate of 4,2601 % per annum until the date of payment, in the alternative at the European Central Bank main refinancing rate + 2 % per annum until the date of payment, in the further alternative at such rate and for such period as the Court thinks fit; and










—


the Bank’s costs of this application;














—


condemn the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the applicant and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged.
According to the applicant, this breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015245EN.01000101.xml










27.7.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 245/1





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

(2015/C 245/01)

Last publication


OJ C 236, 20.7.2015


Past publications


OJ C 228, 13.7.2015


OJ C 221, 6.7.2015


OJ C 213, 29.6.2015


OJ C 205, 22.6.2015


OJ C 198, 15.6.2015


OJ C 190, 8.6.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-413/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 July 2015 — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, delegation of power, interpretation of the law, public service








C_2015320EN.01002001.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 27 July 2015 — Elaine Farrell v Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)
(Case C-413/15)
(2015/C 320/28)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Elaine Farrell

Defendants: Alan Whitty, The Minister for the Environment, Ireland and the Attorney General, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI)

Questions referred







1.


Is the test in Foster and Others v British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) as set out at para. 20 on the question of what is an emanation of a member state to be read on the basis that the elements of the test are to be applied






(a)


conjunctively, or










(b)


disjunctively?














2.


To the extent that separate matters referred to in Foster and Others v British Gas plc (Case C-188/89) may, alternatively, be considered to be factors which should properly be taken into account in reaching an overall assessment, is there a fundamental principle underlying the separate factors identified in that decision which a court should apply in reasoning an assessment as to whether a specified body is an emanation of the State?










3.


Is it sufficient that a broad measure of responsibility has been transferred to a body by a member state for the ostensible purpose of meeting obligations under European law for that body to be an emanation of the member state or is it necessary, in addition, that such a body additionally have (a) special powers or (b) operate under direct control or supervision of the member state?
Case F-108/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, interest, overtime, remuneration of work








C_2015320EN.01005401.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/54





Action brought on 27 July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
(Case F-108/15)
(2015/C 320/75)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit to five years the period of retroactive recalculation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime to which the applicants are entitled.

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of 16 September 2014 of PMO. 1 to limit the payment of the adaptation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime to which the applicants have been entitled since 1 March 2007 and 1 March 2008 respectively, to five years from 1 September 2008, the date on which the PMO discovered the error in the calculation of their remuneration;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants the adaptation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime from 1 March 2007 and 1 March 2008 respectively, subject to the deduction of the sums already paid and together with default interest on the arrears of that allowance calculated from their deadline for payment until their actual payment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations increased by two points;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-407/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015311EN.01005901.xml










21.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/59





Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Hot-Can Intellectual Property (HotoGo self-heating can technology)
(Case T-407/15)
(2015/C 311/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hot-Can Intellectual Property Sdn Bhd (Cheras, Malaysia)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HotoGo self-heating can technology’ — Application for registration No 11 418 101

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1028/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 February 2014 in Opposition No B2178567;










—


reject the opposed mark in its entirety;










—


order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-434/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines a.o./Council
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, damage, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2015328EN.01001901.xml










5.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/19





Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines a.o./Council
(Case T-434/15)
(2015/C 328/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (Tehran, Iran); Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL) (Tehran); Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines (SAPID) (Tehran); Khazar Sea Shipping Lines (Anzali Free Zone, Iran); Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co. (Tehran); Irinvestship Ltd (London, United Kingdom); and IRISL Europe GmbH (Hambourg, Germany) (represented by: M. Taher, Solicitor, M. Malek, QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister).

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the Council to pay the applicants compensation, for an amount to be determined in the course of the present proceedings, but not less than USD 57 1 0 40  504, together with interest; and










—


order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the EU Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicants was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon the Applicants and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the EU is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicants for which they are entitled to compensation.
Case T-429/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)
Date: 2015-07-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, computer equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015320EN.01003701.xml










28.9.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/37





Action brought on 27 July 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)
(Case T-429/15)
(2015/C 320/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

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 elements ‘MAD CATZ’ — Community trade mark application No 11 390 846

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 May 2015 in Case R 2176/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 23 June 2014 in Opposition B 2 182 312;










—


reject the opposed mark for all goods in class 25;










—


order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.