do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-674/13: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark GUGLER — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Ground raised by the Court of its own motion)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, building technique, glass, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016090EN.01001401.xml










7.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/14





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Gugler France v OHIM — Gugler (GUGLER)
(Case T-674/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark GUGLER - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Ground raised by the Court of its own motion))
(2016/C 090/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gugler France (Besançon, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alexander Gugler (Maxdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Gugler France and Mr Alexander Gugler.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 October 2013 (Case R 356/2012-4);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Gugler France in the course of the proceedings before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.
Case C-415/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Cartels — European market in phosphates for animal feed — Fine imposed on the appellants following a settlement procedure — Payment of the fine in instalments — Requirement to provide a bank guarantee at a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal feedingstuffs, bank, cartel, credit guarantee, market-sharing agreement, phosphate, price agreement, sanction (EU)








C_2016106EN.01000701.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/7





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2016 — Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v European Commission
(Case C-415/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Cartels - European market in phosphates for animal feed - Fine imposed on the appellants following a settlement procedure - Payment of the fine in instalments - Requirement to provide a bank guarantee at a bank with a long-term ‘AA’ credit rating - Duty to state reasons))
(2016/C 106/08)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellants: Quimitéchnica.com — Comércio e Indústria Química, SA, José de Mello — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA (represented by: J. Calheiros, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and M. Marques Mendes, lawyer)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 26 June 2015 in Quimitéchnica.com and José de Mello v Commission;










2.


Refers the matter back before the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
Case T-335/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark DoggiS — Prior national figurative marks DoggiS — Prior national word marks DOGGIS and DOGGIBOX — Prior national figurative marks representing a person in the shape of a hot-dog — Additional evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, franchising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01003601.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/36





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Davó Lledó v OHIM — Administradora y Franquicias América and Inversiones Ged (DoggiS)
(Case T-335/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark DoggiS - Prior national figurative marks DoggiS - Prior national word marks DOGGIS and DOGGIBOX - Prior national figurative marks representing a person in the shape of a hot-dog - Additional evidence adduced for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Evidence adduced for the first time before the General Court))
(2016/C 098/47)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José-Manuel Davó Lledó (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J.-V. Gil Martí, lawyer)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Administradora y Franquicias América, SA (Santiago, Chile) and Inversiones Ged Ltda (Santiago)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 1824/2013-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Administradora y Franquicias América, SA and Inversiones Ged Ltda and, on the other, Mr José-Manuel Davó Lledó

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr José-Manuel Davó Lledó to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
Case T-41/16: Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, cheese, designation of origin, equal treatment, fundamental rights, labelling, product designation








C_2016118EN.01003402.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/34





Action brought on 28 January 2016 — Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry and Others v Commission
(Case T-41/16)
(2016/C 118/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Cyprus Turkish Chamber of Industry (Nicosia, Cyprus), Animal Breeders Association (Nicosia), Milk and Oil Products Production and Marketing Cooperative Ltd. (Nicosia), Süt Urünleri İmalatçulari Birliği Milk Processors Association (Nicosia) and Fatma Garanti (Güzelyurt, Cyprus) (represented by: B. O’Connor, Solicitor, S. Gubel and E. Bertolotto, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision Ares(2015)5171539 of 18 November 2015 and Commission Decision Ares(2016)220922 of 15 January 2016 in relation to the opposition procedures concerning the application for registration of ‘ΧΑΛΛΟΥΜΙ’ (HALLOUMI)/‘HELLIM’ (ΠΟΠ) (CY-PDO-0005-01243);










—


declare the illegality of Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, and the inapplicability of those provisions in the case at hand, insofar as they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the Applicants;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they exclude the applicants from the procedure for the registration of Halloumi/Hellim as a protected designation of origin in the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Commission decisions are illegal insofar as they breach the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Articles 49, 50, 51 and 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) are illegal and should be declared inapplicable insofar they do not provide for a system ensuring the respect of the fundamental rights of the applicants.






(1)  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 (OJ L 343, p. 1)
Case T-781/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING — Earlier Community figurative mark TVR — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01004301.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/43





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)
(Case T-781/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING - Earlier Community figurative mark TVR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 098/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, 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: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2532/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TVR Automotive Ltd and Fabio Cardoni.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TVR Automotive Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.
Amendments to the ethics framework of the ECB (This text replaces Article 36a of the text published in the Official Journal C 204 of 20 June 2015, p. 3)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, ethics, professional ethics, professional secret, rules of procedure








C_2016031EN.01000301.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/3





AMENDMENTS TO THE ETHICS FRAMEWORK OF THE ECB
(This text replaces Article 36a of the text published in the Official Journal C 204 of 20 June 2015, p. 3)
(2016/C 31/04)
In Part I. The Conditions of Employment for staff of the European Central Bank (ECB) as regards the ethics framework, Article 36a is replaced by the following:

‘Article 36a
Under the conditions laid down in the Staff Rules, members of staff who, following the end of their employment with the ECB, are prohibited as a result of their cooling-off period from taking up a specific occupational activity and who cannot find a suitable alternative occupational activity and are as a result unemployed, shall be entitled to the following benefits for the duration of the prohibition on undertaking the activity and as long as they remain unemployed:






(a)


a special monthly allowance equal to:






—


80 % of the last basic salary for the first year,










—


60 % of the last basic salary for the year thereafter;














(b)


household and child allowances;










(c)


cover under the ECB medical scheme and accident insurance scheme;










(d)


an education allowance in accordance with Article 19, limited to the reimbursement of a maximum of EUR 299 per month, except for children with certified, imperative educational needs as defined in the Staff Rules, in which case the reimbursement shall be increased to a maximum of EUR 588 per month. The allowance shall be payable only until the end of the academic year in which the member of staff becomes unemployed and provided that the child remains in the same educational establishment for the remainder of the academic year in question;










(e)


accrual of pensionable service during the period mentioned in point (a). During such period they shall remain members of the pension scheme and the “ECB contribution”, “compulsory contribution” and “voluntary contribution”, where applicable, shall be calculated on the basis of the special monthly allowance specified in point (a) in lieu of the basic salary.




The above benefits shall replace the unemployment benefits provided for in Article 36, where applicable, and are complementary to any other benefits of the same nature provided by other sources, including unemployment benefits. Members of staff shall claim and declare such benefits, which shall be deducted from those payable by the ECB.
The above benefits shall not be payable to members of staff on retirement.’.
Case T-194/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark AEROSTONE — Earlier Community word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE — Earlier non-registered national figurative mark BRIDGESTONE — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal of registration)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016098EN.01003301.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/33





Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)
(Case T-194/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark AEROSTONE - Earlier Community word marks STONE and BRIDGESTONE - Earlier non-registered national figurative mark BRIDGESTONE - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal of registration))
(2016/C 098/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bristol Global Co. Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Bozhinova, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bridgestone Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented initially by M. Blair, Solicitor, and subsequently by S. Malynicz, Barrister, and C. Balme and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 916/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bridgestone Corp. and Bristol Global Co. Ltd.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bristol Global Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Bridgestone Corp.






(1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.
Case C-375/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law — Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders — Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets. — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cessation of trading, freedom to provide services, game of chance, infringement of EU law, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, service concession, transfer of property








C_2016106EN.01000601.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Rosanna Laezza
(Case C-375/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Judgment of the Court of Justice which declared the national rules on licences for the collection of bets incompatible with EU law - Reorganisation of the system by way of a new call for tenders - Free-of-charge transfer of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned by licensees and which constitute their network for the management and collection of bets. - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
(2016/C 106/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Frosinone

Party in the main proceedings

Rosanna Laezza

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.
Special Report No 18/2015 — ‘Financial assistance provided to countries in difficulties’
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, aid programme, economic analysis, economic recession, financial aid, public debt








C_2016031EN.01002301.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/23





Special Report No 18/2015
‘Financial assistance provided to countries in difficulties’
(2016/C 31/07)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 18/2015 ‘Financial assistance provided to countries in difficulties’ 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.
Information on the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programs
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU programme, European neighbourhood policy, Tunisia, Union for the Mediterranean, association agreement (EU), financing of the EU budget, protocol to an agreement








L_2016021EN.01000101.xml










28.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 21/1







Information on the date of entry into force of the Protocol to the Euro Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tunisia on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Tunisia in Union programs

On 26 October 2015 and 11 January 2016 respectively, the European Union and the Government of the Republic of Tunisia notified each other of the completion of the procedures necessary for entry into force of the above protocol (1).
The protocol, signed in Brussels on 17 March 2015, will accordingly enter into force on 1 February 2016, in accordance with Article 10.2 thereof.


(1)  
            OJ L 96, 11.4.2015, p. 3.
Case F-138/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Schwander v Commission
Date: 2016-01-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, interest, transfer of pension rights








C_2016098EN.01006202.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/62





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 January 2016 — Schwander v Commission
(Case F-138/11) (1)

(2016/C 098/81)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 24.