do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-164/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Calberson GE v Commission (Arbitration clause — Programme to supply agricultural products to Russia — Supply of beef — Non-performance of the contract by the intervention agency — Applicable law — Limitation — Late release of certain supply securities — Partial payment of a transport invoice — Underpayment in foreign currency of certain invoices — Default interest)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Russia, award of contract, beef, contract of carriage, interest, intervention agency, invoicing, payment, supplies contract, supply








C_2016111EN.01002001.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/20





Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Calberson GE v Commission
(Case T-164/14) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Programme to supply agricultural products to Russia - Supply of beef - Non-performance of the contract by the intervention agency - Applicable law - Limitation - Late release of certain supply securities - Partial payment of a transport invoice - Underpayment in foreign currency of certain invoices - Default interest))
(2016/C 111/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Calberson GE (Villeneuve-Garenne, France) (represented by: T. Gallois and E. Dereviankine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 272 TFEU for an order requiring the Commission to compensate the applicant for the loss which it claims to have suffered following acts of misconduct allegedly committed by the intervention agency in the performance of a contract relating to the transport of beef to Russia in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18 January 1999 laying down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (OJ 1999 L 14, p. 3), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1799/1999 of 16 August 1999 on the supply of beef to Russia (OJ 1999 L 217, p. 20).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Calberson GE to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.
Case T-73/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2016118EN.01003801.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/38





Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-37/12 De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-73/16 P)
(2016/C 118/44)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul point 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 61, 63 to 69 and 71 of the judgment itself;










—


Consequently, declare that bullying was committed by the EIB against Dr De Nicola, and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs. Subject to completion of the requested medical examination;










—


Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-37/12).
The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-70/16 P De Nicola v EIB.
Joined Cases T-711/13 and T-716/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR — Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG — Partial refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01001801.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/18





Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Harrys Pubar and Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harry’s New York Bar and Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)
(Joined Cases T-711/13 and T-716/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HARRY’S BAR - Earlier national figurative mark PUB CASINO Harrys RESTAURANG - Partial refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 111/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer) (Case T-711/13); and Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer) (Case T-716/13)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Case T-711/13); and Harrys Pubar AB (intervener before the General Court in Case T-716/13)

Re:

Two actions brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls, in Case T-711/13, points 1 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 October 2013 (joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harrys Pubar AB and Harry’s New York Bar SA;










2.


Dismisses, in Case T-716/13, the action brought by Harry’s New York Bar;










3.


Orders Harry’s New York Bar to bear its own costs, to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court and to pay the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM. OHIM is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Harrys Pubar in the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.
Case T-364/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark B! O — Earlier Community word mark bo — Relative ground for refusal — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, supermarket, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01002201.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/22





Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2016 — Penny-Markt v OHIM — Boquoi Handels (B! O)
(Case T-364/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark B! O - Earlier Community word mark bo - Relative ground for refusal - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2016/C 111/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Penny-Markt GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and A. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, A. Pohlmann, subsequently, S. Hanne, and lastly, A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Boquoi Handels OHG (Straelen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mels, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2014 (R 1201/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Boquoi Handels OHG and Penny-Markt GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Penny-Markt GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
Case T-75/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, promotion, staff assessment








C_2016118EN.01003901.xml










4.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 118/39





Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB
(Case T-75/16 P)
(2016/C 118/45)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;










—


Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;










—


Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).
The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.7824 — Vita Central Europe/Walmark) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2016062EN.01000101.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.7824 — Vita Central Europe/Walmark)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 62/01)
On 11 February 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M7824. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-49/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain)) — Finanmadrid EFC SA v VA(*), QE(*), DG(*) and NZ(*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Order for payment procedure — Enforcement proceedings — Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement to raise of its own motion the fact that the unfair term is invalid — Principle of res judicata — Principle of effectiveness — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Judicial protection)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, jurisdiction, national law, unfair terms of contract




C_2016145EN.01000501.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena (Spain)) — Finanmadrid EFC SA v VA (*1), QE (*1), DG (*1), NZ (*1)

(Case C-49/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Order for payment procedure - Enforcement proceedings - Powers of the national court responsible for enforcement to raise of its own motion the fact that the unfair term is invalid - Principle of res judicata - Principle of effectiveness - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Judicial protection))
(2016/C 145/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Cartagena

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanmadrid EFC SA

Defendants: VA (*1), QE (*1), DG (*1), NZ (*1)


Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit the court ruling on the enforcement of an order for payment to assess of its own motion whether a term in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer is unfair, when the authority hearing the application for an order for payment does not have the power to make such an assessment.


(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  
            OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.
Case T-84/16: Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bank, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01005301.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/53






Action brought on 18 February 2016 — Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena et Banca Widiba v EUIPO — ING-DIBa (widiba)
(Case T-84/16)
(2016/C 211/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicants: Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA (Siena, Italy), Wise Dialog Bank SpA (Banca Widiba SpA) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan and D. Contini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ING-DIBa AG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘widiba’ — Application for registration No 12 192 415

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2015 in Joined Cases R 113/2015-2 and R 174/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision as it did not grant the request for restitutio in integrum, and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;




In the event of dismissal of conclusion 1) above,






—


annul the contested decision at issue as it upheld the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the trade mark application No 12 192 415 for some specific goods and services, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 415 is eligible for registration for such goods and services or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures;




In any case,






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it upheld ING-DIBa’s appeal on credit cards, and declare that the EU trade mark application No 12 192 15 is eligible for registration for such goods or in alternative refer the case back to EUIPO in order for the latter to adopt the consequent measures




In any case,






—


order EUIPO to bear, in addition to its own costs, also the costs and legal fees borne by Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and Wise Dialog Bank SpA with regard to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 81(1) and 60 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-125/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2016 — Sesma Merino v OHIM
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, staff assessment








C_2016111EN.01004502.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/45





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2016 — Sesma Merino v OHIM
(Case F-125/13) (1)

(2016/C 111/57)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 129, 28/4/2014, p. 37.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-02-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016062EN.01000501.xml










18.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/5





Euro exchange rates (1)

17 February 2016
(2016/C 62/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1136




JPY


Japanese yen


127,10




DKK


Danish krone


7,4645




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77835




SEK


Swedish krona


9,4723




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1034




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5955




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


27,044




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,95




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3979




RON


Romanian leu


4,4550




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2961




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5629




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5387




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6764




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6902




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5703




KRW


South Korean won


1 368,24




ZAR


South African rand


17,4320




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2685




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6173




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 019,19




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6939




PHP


Philippine peso


53,039




RUB


Russian rouble


85,1875




THB


Thai baht


39,678




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4866




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8655




INR


Indian rupee


76,2800






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.