do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-804/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark Tropical — Earlier national word mark TROPICAL — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Extent of the applicant’s rights under national law — Coexistence of the marks — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, animal welfare, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016326EN.01002302.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/23





Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Ogrodnik v EUIPO — Aviário Tropical (Tropical)
(Case T-804/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark Tropical - Earlier national word mark TROPICAL - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Extent of the applicant’s rights under national law - Coexistence of the marks - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2016/C 326/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tadeusz Ogrodnik (Chorzów, Poland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Garrido Otaola, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Aviário Tropical, SA (Loures, Portugal)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 September 2014 (Case R 1948/2013-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Aviário Tropical and Mr Ogrodnik.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 September 2014 (Case R 1948/2013-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Tadeusz Ogrodnik.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-382/16: Action brought on 21 July 2016 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, consultancy, hire purchase, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016335EN.01004802.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/48





Action brought on 21 July 2016 — Asna v EUIPO — Wings Software (ASNA WINGS)
(Case T-382/16)
(2016/C 335/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Asna, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: J. Devaureix and J.C. Erdozain López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wings Software BVBA (Heist-Op-den-Berg, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘ASNA WINGS’ — Application for registration No 11 388 352

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 April 2016 in Case R 436/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies;










—


declare the proposed evidence admissible;










—


annul and declare inapplicable the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Error as to the proof of use by the other party;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-91/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — AV v Commission (Civil Service — Member of the temporary staff — Appointment — Medical examination preceding appointment — Incomplete declarations at the medical examination — Medical reservation — Retroactive application of the medical reservation — Not eligible for the invalidity allowance — Annulment — Execution of a judgment of the General Court)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: disability insurance, indemnification, medical examination, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2016364EN.01003201.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/32






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — AV v Commission
(Case F-91/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Member of the temporary staff - Appointment - Medical examination preceding appointment - Incomplete declarations at the medical examination - Medical reservation - Retroactive application of the medical reservation - Not eligible for the invalidity allowance - Annulment - Execution of a judgment of the General Court))
(2016/C 364/37)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, T. S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, agents)

Re:

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.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of 16 September 2014 by which the European Commission applied the medical reservation referred to in Article 32 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union to AV;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay AV the sum of EUR 2 000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered by him;










3.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by AV.






(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015, p. 46.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8075 — Partners Group/Infrared Capital Partners/Merkur Offshore) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, engineering structure, merger control








C_2016265EN.01000102.xml










21.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 265/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8075 — Partners Group/Infrared Capital Partners/Merkur Offshore)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 265/02)
On 8 July 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 the 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 32016M8075. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-542/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 101(1) TFEU — Purely internal situation — Application of analogous national rules — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concerted practice — Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider — Conditions)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, inter-company agreement, jurisdiction, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2016343EN.01000401.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/4





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā Tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’ v Konkurences padome, and Konkurences padome v SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’
(Case C-542/14) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 101(1) TFEU - Purely internal situation - Application of analogous national rules - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concerted practice - Liability of an undertaking for the acts of a service provider - Conditions))
(2016/C 343/05)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā Tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: SIA ‘VM Remonts’ (formerly SIA ‘DIV un KO’), SIA ‘Ausma grupa’, Konkurences padome

Respondents: Konkurences padome, SIA ‘Pārtikas kompānija’

Operative part of the judgment

Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking may, in principle, be held liable for a concerted practice on account of the acts of an independent service provider supplying it with services only if one of the following conditions is met:






—


the service provider was in fact acting under the direction or control of the undertaking concerned, or










—


that undertaking was aware of the anti-competitive objectives pursued by its competitors and the service provider and intended to contribute to them by its own conduct, or










—


that undertaking could reasonably have foreseen the anti-competitive acts of its competitors and the service provider and was prepared to accept the risk which they entailed.






(1)  OJ C 56, 16.12.2015.
Case T-790/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission — Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court — New measures including the applicant's name on the lists — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Presumption of innocence — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, ownership, principle of proportionality, trade restriction








C_2016326EN.01002301.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/23





Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Hassan v Council
(Case T-790/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission - Annulment of prior measures by a judgment of the General Court - New measures including the applicant's name on the lists - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Non-contractual liability))
(2016/C 326/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Pettiti, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Kyriakopoulou and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/678/CFSP of 26 September 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 59), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1013/2014 of 26 September 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 283, p. 9), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 82), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/828 of 28 May 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 132, p. 3), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU asking to obtain compensation for the harm which the applicant has allegedly suffered because of those measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Orders Mr Samir Hassan to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case F-82/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Sickness insurance — Refusal of reimbursement of medical expenses — Laser therapy — No scientific validity of the treatment — Rules governing designation of an independent doctor — Competent medical association — Opinion of the independent doctor — Scope of the judicial review — Grounds of refusal of reimbursement — Internal provisions on sickness insurance — Objective of the laser therapy — Palliative effects on pain — Prior authorisation of the medical officer — Material harm — Premature conclusions — Non-pecuniary harm — Amount not stated — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-07-21
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, health expenditure, health insurance, indemnification, staff regulations (EU), therapeutics








C_2016364EN.01003102.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/31






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — De Nicola v EIB
(Case F-82/15) (1)

((Civil Service - EIB staff - Sickness insurance - Refusal of reimbursement of medical expenses - Laser therapy - No scientific validity of the treatment - Rules governing designation of an independent doctor - Competent medical association - Opinion of the independent doctor - Scope of the judicial review - Grounds of refusal of reimbursement - Internal provisions on sickness insurance - Objective of the laser therapy - Palliative effects on pain - Prior authorisation of the medical officer - Material harm - Premature conclusions - Non-pecuniary harm - Amount not stated - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 364/36)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented initially by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers, and subsequently by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by: G. Nuvoli and J.-P. Minnaert, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, and subsequently by: G. Faedo and G. Nuvoli, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of the decision not to reimburse the expenses incurred by the applicant for laser treatment undergone in 2007 and, secondly, of the consecutive and connected decisions taken by the bank in 2014.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of 4 December 2014, by which it refused to reimburse Mr Carlo De Nicola for the costs of FP3 laser therapy;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015, p. 59.