do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-144/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Aviation Safety Agency, servant (EU), special leave, work contract








C_2016048EN.01010201.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/102





Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA
(Case F-144/15)
(2016/C 048/118)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year;










—


Order the EASA to pay the costs.
Case T-694/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — EREF v Commission (Action for annulment — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, aid system, control of State aid, principle of proportionality, renewable energy, single market








C_2016038EN.01005501.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/55





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — EREF v Commission
(Case T-694/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 038/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: U. Prall, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Herrmann and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of the Communication from the Commission of 28 June 2014, entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), concerning the assessment criteria of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid for energy from renewable sources.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Case C-618/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: distributive trades, electronic commerce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle








C_2016038EN.01003702.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Concurrence Sàrl v Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl
(Case C-618/15)
(2016/C 038/51)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Concurrence Sàrl

Defendants: Samsung Electronics France SAS, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged breach of a prohibition on resale outside a selective distribution network and via a marketplace by means of online offers for sale on a number of websites operated in various Member States, an authorised distributor which considers that it has been adversely affected has the right to bring an action seeking an injunction prohibiting the resulting unlawful interference in the courts of the territory in which the online content is or was accessible, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case C-621/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 –W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damage, illness, medical research, producer's liability, vaccine








C_2016048EN.01001802.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 –W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko
(Case C-621/15)
(2016/C 048/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: W and Others

Defendant: Sanofi Pasteur MSD SNC, Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine, Caisse Carpimko

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 4 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products be interpreted as precluding, in the area of liability of pharmaceutical laboratories for the vaccines that they manufacture, a method of proof by which the court ruling on the merits, in the exercise of its exclusive jurisdiction to appraise the facts, may consider that the facts relied on by the applicant constitute serious, specific and consistent presumptions capable of proving the defect in the vaccine and the existence of a causal relationship between it and the disease, notwithstanding the finding that medical research does not establish a relationship between the vaccine and the occurrence of the disease?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, preclude a system of presumptions by which the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by the injured person will always be considered to be established where certain indications of causation are found?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 4 of Directive 85/374, cited above, be interpreted as meaning that proof, the burden of which rests on the person injured, of the existence of a causal relationship between the defect attributed to a vaccine and the damage suffered by that person cannot be considered to have been adduced unless the causal relationship is established scientifically?






(1)  OJ L 210, p. 29.
Case C-620/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, staff








C_2016048EN.01001801.xml










8.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 23 November 2015 — A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH v Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)
(Case C-620/15)
(2016/C 048/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH

Respondents: Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (URSSAF), Sozialversicherunganstalt des Kantons Graubünden (Social Insurance Institution for the Canton of Graubünden)

Question referred

Is the effect of an E 101 certificate issued, in accordance with Articles 11(1) and Article 12a(1a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to the members of their families moving within the Community, (1) by the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State whose social security legislation remains applicable to the situation of the employee, binding, first, on the institutions and authorities of the host Member State and, secondly, on the courts of that Member State, where it is found that the conditions under which the employee carries out his activity clearly do not fall within the material scope of the exceptions set out in Article 14(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71? (2)



(1)  OJ 1972 L 74, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
Case T-118/15: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Slovenia v Commission (Action for annulment — EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Time-limit for bringing an action — Starting point — Out of time — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF, EU financing arrangements, aid for restructuring, aid to agriculture, building








C_2016038EN.01005802.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/58





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Slovenia v Commission
(Case T-118/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Time-limit for bringing an action - Starting point - Out of time - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 038/78)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2014/950/EU of 19 December 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 369, p. 71), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible.










2.


Holds that there is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Italian Republic, the French Republic and Hungary.










3.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










4.


Orders the Republic of Slovenia, the Commission, the Italian Republic, the French Republic and Hungary to bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015389EN.01000101.xml










23.11.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/1





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

(2015/C 389/01)

Last publication


OJ C 381, 16.11.2015


Past publications


OJ C 371, 9.11.2015


OJ C 363, 3.11.2015


OJ C 354, 26.10.2015


OJ C 346, 19.10.2015


OJ C 337, 12.10.2015


OJ C 328, 5.10.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-766/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark FoodSafe — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01005502.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/55





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Actega Terra v OHIM — Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (FoodSafe)
(Case T-766/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark FoodSafe - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 038/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Lins, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2440/2013-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG and Actega Terra GmbH.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Actega Terra GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.
Case C-625/15 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, plant breeding, plant variety right, principle of legal certainty, technical specification








C_2016027EN.01002701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/27





Appeal brought on 23 November 2015 by Schniga GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2015 in joined Cases T-91/14 and T-92/14: Schniga GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office
(Case C-625/15 P)
(2016/C 027/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Schniga GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Brookfield New Zealand Ltd, Elaris SNC

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the judgement of the General Court of 10 September 2015 in joined cases T-91/14 and T-92/14;










—


order the CPVO and the Interveners to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court committed a legal error in the application of Article 7 of Regulation No. 2100/94 (1) on Community Plant Variety Rights (hereinafter: CPVR) as well as of Articles 22 and 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1239/95 (2) of 31 May 1995.
The General Court wrongly assessed the competence of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the inclusion of additional characteristics in the examination process of a variety to be granted Community plant variety protection.
The General Court wrongly assessed the legal nature of technical protocols and guidelines to be applied in the technical examination of an applied for Community plant variety right, resulting in a wrong assessment of the time frame in which the President of the Community Plant Variety Office may decide that a new characteristic for determination of distinctness of the new variety may be taken into account.
The General Court erred in assessing the consequence of the application of the principles of legal certainty, the objectivity of the Community Plant Variety Office and equal treatment in relation to the decisions of the President of the Community Plant Variety Office in the examination of a new variety.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights

OJ L 227, p. 1.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office

OJ L 121, p. 37.
Case T-640/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Beul v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Functioning of financial markets — Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 — Legislative act — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, auditing, financial market, legislative act (EU), management audit, market supervision, services of general interest








C_2016027EN.01005601.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/56





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Beul v Parliament and Council
(Case T-640/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Functioning of financial markets - Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 - Legislative act - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 027/72)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Carsten René Beul (Neuwied, Germany) (represented initially by K.-G Stümper, then by H.-M. Pott and T. Eckhold, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: P. Schonard and D. Warin, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by R. Weimann and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on specific requirements regarding statutory audit of public-interest entities and repealing Commission Decision 2005/909/EC (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 77).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.










3.


Mr Carsten René Beul shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










4.


The Commission and the Parliament shall bear their own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.
Case T-678/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in black and white)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01001901.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/19





Action brought on 23 November 2015 — Novartis v OHIM (Representation of a crescent in black and white)
(Case T-678/15)
(2016/C 090/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Zintler, lawyer)

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

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a crescent in black and white) — Application for registration No 13 191 036

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2015 in Case R 89/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (Community trade mark No 13 191 036) in respect of the goods in Class 5 described in the application for registration;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


wrong application of Article 7(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-670/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission (Action for annulment — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, energy policy, environmental protection, terms for aid








C_2016027EN.01005701.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/57





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission
(Case T-670/14) (1)

((Action for annulment - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 027/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Milchindustrie-Verband eV (Berlin, Germany) and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV (Berlin) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s Communication of 28 June 2014 entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), in so far as the sector for the operation of dairies and cheese-making (NACE 10.51) is not mentioned in Annex 3 to that communication.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Milchindustrie-Verband eV and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband eV shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.
Case C-617/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, nationality of legal persons, registered trade mark, subsidiary, trade-mark law








C_2016038EN.01003701.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc. and Nike Retail B.V.
(Case C-617/15)
(2016/C 038/50)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S

Defendants: Nike Inc., Nike Retail B.V.

Question referred

Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)



(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case T-211/15 P: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Necci v Commission
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: duties of civil servants, legality, right to justice, transfer of pension rights








C_2016038EN.01007501.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/75





Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — Necci v Commission
(Case T-211/15 P) (1)

(2016/C 038/101)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.