do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-149/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, pay scale, promotion








C_2016068EN.01004602.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/46





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-149/15)
(2016/C 068/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant the penalty of deferment of advancement to a higher step and obliging the applicant to pay compensation in respect of harm allegedly incurred by the European Union, and an application for compensation in respect of the non-material harm and the reputational damage allegedly incurred.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the applicant’s advancement to a higher step for 18 months and payment of compensation in respect of harm assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35;










—


so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage incurred by the applicant assessed at EUR 20 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Case C-689/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, product quality, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016118EN.01000801.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2015 — W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze v Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse
(Case C-689/15)
(2016/C 118/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: W.F. Gözze Frottierweberei GmbH, Wolfgang Gözze

Respondent: Verein Bremer Baumwollbörse

Questions referred







1.


Can the use of an individual mark as a certification mark constitute, in relation to the goods for which it is used, use as a trade mark for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case T-749/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d'Escompte v ECB
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, debt, equal treatment, indemnification, monetary policy, principle of legal certainty








C_2016068EN.01003901.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/39





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d'Escompte v ECB
(Case T-749/15)
(2016/C 068/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Nausicaa Anadyomène (Paris, France) and Banque d'Escompte (Paris) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought







—


Declare the action admissible and well founded;




In consequence:






—


Hold the defendant liable, within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU, for the errors committed in its monetary policy concerning the Greek debt instruments;










—


Order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the loss suffered, assessed at EUR 10 901 448,38for Nausicaa, subject to increase, and EUR 239 058,84for the Banque d’Escompte;










—


In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging sufficiently serious infringements committed by the ECB. The plea is divided into three parts:






—


First part, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;










—


Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);










—


Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of Article 41 of the Charter and of the duty of care.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a loss suffered by the applicants and a causal link between the unlawful conduct of the ECB and that loss.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, dual-use good, economic sanctions, financial market, international sanctions, oil industry, territorial dispute, trade restriction








L_2015334EN.01002201.xml










22.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 334/22








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2015/2431
of 21 December 2015
         
amending Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2014 the Council adopted Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1).












(2)


On 19 March 2015 the European Council agreed that the necessary measures would be taken to clearly link the duration of the restrictive measures set out in Decision 2014/512/CFSP to the complete implementation of the Minsk agreements.












(3)


The Minsk agreements will not be completely implemented by 31 December 2015. Decision 2014/512/CFSP should therefore be renewed for a further six months in order to enable the Council to further assess the implementation of those agreements.












(4)


Decision 2014/512/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The first subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP is replaced by the following:
‘This Decision shall apply until 31 July 2016.’.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 21 December 2015.


For the Council


The President

J. ASSELBORN
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2015429EN.01000101.xml










21.12.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 429/1





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

(2015/C 429/01)

Last publication


OJ C 414, 14.12.2015


Past publications


OJ C 406, 7.12.2015


OJ C 398, 30.11.2015


OJ C 389, 23.11.2015


OJ C 381, 16.11.2015


OJ C 371, 9.11.2015


OJ C 363, 3.11.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-748/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building industry, civil engineering, engineering structure, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002601.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/26





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
(Case T-748/15)
(2016/C 078/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gauff’ — Community trade mark No 6 192 521

Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 1350/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Breach of the right to be heard;










—


Defective statement of reasons.
Case T-751/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition policy, dominant position, motor vehicle industry, supplier








C_2016068EN.01003902.xml










22.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/39





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Contact Software v Commission
(Case T-751/15)
(2016/C 068/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Contact Software GmbH (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: J.-M. Schultze, S. Pautke and C. Ehlenz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Decision C(2015) 7006 final in Case AT.39846 — CONTACT/Dassault & PTC of 9 October 2015 with which the applicant’s complaint of 18 November 2010 was rejected on the basis of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004. (1)

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






1.


First plea in law: erroneous definition of the relevant markets
The applicant submits that the defendant erred in law and made manifest errors of assessment in the interpretation and application of Article 102 TFEU by not investigating the applicant’s references and arguments relating to a narrower definition of the relevant markets, which suggest that there are, first, separate markets for supplier-specific ‘Computer Aided Design’ (‘CAD’) software or at least for high end CAD software for car manufacturers and car suppliers and, secondly, a market for interface information about the CAD software of every supplier.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of Article 102 TFEU
With this plea, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error in its assessment of the dominant market position of the undertakings concerned, which error is above all based on the erroneous market definition which has already been referred to.










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state reasons
In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the rejection of its complaint was not sufficiently reasoned.










4.


Fourth plea in law: incorrect exercise of discretion
With the fourth plea the applicant submits that the defendant’s conclusion that, having regard to the Community interest, there were no sufficient reasons to further investigate a possible infringement of Article 102 TFEU is manifestly incorrect.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).
Case T-756/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, delivery, hotel industry, paper, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016059EN.01004901.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/49





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft v OHIM — Fédération Internationale des Logis (T)
(Case T-756/15)
(2016/C 059/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: H. Prange, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Federation Internationale des Logis (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T’ — Application for registration No 11 623 022

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 August 2015 in Case R 2653/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision, and amend it to the effect that the opposition is rejected in its entirety;










—


order of the defendant and, as the case may be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-690/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, general legal principle, property leasing, social-security contribution








C_2016098EN.01002101.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
(Case C-690/15)
(2016/C 098/27)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Douai

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wenceslas de Lobkowicz

Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

Question referred

Is there any principle of EU law which precludes an official of the European Commission being subject to the contribution sociale généralisée (general social contribution), the prélèvement social (social levy), and additional contributions to that levy at the rate of 0.3 % and 1.1 % on income from real estate received in a Member State of the European Union?
Case T-744/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016078EN.01002301.xml










29.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 78/23





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Puro v OHIM (‘smartline’)
(Case T-744/15)
(2016/C 078/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Puro Italian Style SpA (Puro SpA) (Modena, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, 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 containing the word element ‘smartline’ — Application for registration No 12 574 802

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2015 in Case R 2258/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-148/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2015-12-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), legal profession, level of education, linguistics








C_2016059EN.01005201.xml










15.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 59/52





Action brought on 21 December 2015 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-148/15)
(2016/C 059/60)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: P. Vanden Casteele, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 — French-language lawyer-linguists (AD 7) not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition on the ground that he did not have a level of education corresponding to a completed course of legal training from a Belgian, French or Luxemburgish institution of higher education.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the selection and appointment decisions taken in connection with the ‘Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/306/15 based on qualifications and tests’ for ‘French-language (FR) lawyer-linguists (AD 7)’ (EU Official Journal, 21 May 2015), including the decision, referred to in an email of 24 September 2015 to the applicant, that ‘following an examination of your application, … the selection board for the abovementioned competition cannot admit you to the next stage of the competition’.