do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-91/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-10-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disability insurance, indemnification, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2015406EN.01004601.xml










7.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 406/46






Action brought on 19 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-91/15)
(2015/C 406/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, in so far as it does not give the applicant the invalidity allowance and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions of the Commission of 16 September 2014 applying the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS to the applicant and refusing to give him the invalidity allowance;










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 50  000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs.
Case C-543/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie
Date: 2015-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, measure having equivalent effect, principle of proportionality, public safety, security of supply, single market








C_2016016EN.01001802.xml










18.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 October 2015 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie
(Case C-543/15)
(2016/C 016/23)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie

Question referred

Must Articles 34 and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a capacity mechanism in the electricity sector such as that at issue in the main proceedings which is described in particular in paragraphs 1, 15 and 17 to 19 of the present decision?
In particular:






a)


Even though the mechanism remunerates capacities only on the basis of their availability, not of their actual production, and having regard to the taking into account of the effects of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, which relaxes the causal link between the exclusion of foreign capacities from the mechanism, as laid down by the decree, and the restrictive effect on cross-border electricity trading which could arise therefrom in terms of investors’ resource allocation choices and suppliers’ procurement choices, must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as precluding such an exclusion measure?










b)


Having regard to developments in the European legal framework governing the internal market in electricity, is the objective of security of electricity supply for the inhabitants of a Member State capable of being covered by the concept of public security provided for in Article 36 TFEU?










c)


Having regard, in particular, to the discretion granted to Member States with respect to defining suitable policies to ensure their security of electricity supply, what criteria may be used to ascertain whether a decentralised market-based capacity mechanism, involving, in the present state of the European electricity market, a measure excluding foreign capacities which is offset by the taking into account of interconnections in the determination of suppliers’ obligations, is capable of satisfying the condition of proportionality required for Article 36 TFEU to apply?
Case T-595/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission
Date: 2015-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU law, European Convention on Human Rights, anti-discriminatory measure, charter on human rights, equality before the law, freedom of association, non-profit organisation








C_2016027EN.01006201.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/62





Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz and Giesen v Commission
(Case T-595/15)
(2016/C 027/79)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Europäischer Tier- und Naturschutz e.V. (Much, Germany) and Horst Giesen (Much) (represented by: P. Brockmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision not to take action of 17 August 2015, notified on 24 August 2015,
on the creation of a European law on associations in the form of a no longer published draft law or of a version of that draft law amended under the authorised framework, which gives equal treatment to cross-border activities for altruistic aims and profit-making associations, in the alternative,
on the harmonisation of the national laws concerning associations and bodies with cross-border activities for altruistic aims;










—


thereby placing the European Commission in a situation whereby it is legally compliant for the purposes of Article 266 TFEU by ordering it to refrain from continuing to prevent or hinder the establishment of the detrimental situation described in the two preceding paragraphs and










—


order the Commission and any potential interveners to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the decision to abandon the creation of a European law on associations and to address the current discrimination and interference with the collective and individual freedom of association.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), general principles of law within the meaning of Article 6(3) of TEU and Article 20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Fundamental Rights










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of the right to equality before the law (Article 20 of the Charter and Article 14 of the ECHR) to the detriment of altruistic values and associations with altruistic aims










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons in Article 41 of the Charter










4.


Fourth plea in law: limitation of the scope of fundamental rights by failing to act, an unlawful interpretation of the law, under Articles 52 and 54 of the Charter
Case T-596/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Batmore Capital v. OHIM — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)
Date: 2015-10-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015414EN.01003701.xml










14.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/37





Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Batmore Capital v. OHIM — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)
(Case T-596/15)
(2015/C 414/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Batmore Capital Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Univers Poche (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘POCKETBOOK’ — Application for registration No 1 034 872

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2015 in Case R 1952/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


consider the present appeal admissible;










—


annul the contested decision in its entirety;










—


register the Community part of the International trademark registration No 1 034 872;










—


order OHIM to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Wrong appreciation of the similarity of the products and services;










—


Wrong appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the signs in conflict.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-10-19
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015346EN.01000101.xml










19.10.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/1





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

(2015/C 346/01)

Last publication


OJ C 337, 12.10.2015


Past publications


OJ C 328, 5.10.2015


OJ C 320, 28.9.2015


OJ C 311, 21.9.2015


OJ C 302, 14.9.2015


OJ C 294, 7.9.2015


OJ C 279, 24.8.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu