do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-602/15: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Jenkinson v Council and Others (Arbitration clause — EU international mission personnel — Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts — Claim for compensation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: arbitration clause, equal treatment, indemnification, jurisdiction, temporary employment, unfair dismissal, work contract








C_2017014EN.01003401.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/34






Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Jenkinson v Council and Others
(Case T-602/15) (1)

((Arbitration clause - EU international mission personnel - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Claim for compensation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2017/C 014/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Liam Jenkinson (Killarney, Ireland) (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, E. Chaboureau and G. Pasqualetti, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: D. Fouquet and E. Raoult, lawyers)

Subject matter of the proceedings

Principally, an application pursuant to Article 272 TFEU seeking, on the one hand, to have the applicant’s contractual relationship reclassified as an employment contract of indeterminate duration and to obtain compensation for the loss that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the abusive use of consecutive fixed-term contracts and an unfair dismissal, and, on the other hand, a declaration that the Council, the Commission and EEAS discriminated against the applicant and an order requiring them to pay compensation to the applicant, and, in the alternative, a claim based on the non-contractual liability of the European institutions.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed.










2)


Liam Jenkinson is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Case T-716/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Gallardo Blanco v EUIPO — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of the representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit) — Earlier EU and Spanish figurative marks — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal breeding, animal feedingstuffs, breeding animal, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017038EN.01003301.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/33





Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Gallardo Blanco v EUIPO — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))
(Case T-716/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of the representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit) - Earlier EU and Spanish figurative marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 038/45)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Juan Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: A. Bosch Döffert, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 1502/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería and Mr Juan Gallardo Blanco.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Juan Gallardo Blanco to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
Case T-795/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01005401.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/54





Action brought on 9 November 2016 — Krasnyiy oktyabr v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (CRABS)
(Case T-795/16)
(2017/C 006/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyiy oktyabr’ OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘CRABS’ — Application for registration No 1 186 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2507/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-783/16: Action brought on 09 November 2016 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Gibraltar, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, tax collection, tax law








C_2017022EN.01003901.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/39





Action brought on 09 November 2016 — Government of Gibraltar v Commission
(Case T-783/16)
(2017/C 022/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Government of Gibraltar (Gibraltar) (represented by: M. Llamas, QC, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, F.-C. Laprévote and C. Froitzheim, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission decision of 1 October 2014 in the State aid case SA.34914(C/2013) (ex 2013/NN) — Gibraltar Corporate Income Tax Regime;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.





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, in finding that the tax rulings could be a new aid, the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.
In support of this plea, the applicant submits as follows: first, that the Commission erred in law in not concluding from the outset that, should the practice of tax rulings or the individual tax rulings constitute State aid, they would be an existing aid; second, that the Commission erred in fact in stating that section 42 of the Income Tax Act of 2010 is the legal basis of the tax rulings; and third, that the decision lacks reasoning when claiming that the tax rulings practice constitutes new aid, an assertion that is contradicted by the claim that the rulings practice amounts to a ‘de facto scheme’.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in fact and law and is based on inadequate reasoning.
In support of this plea, the applicant submits as follows: first, that the elements needed to justify an extension of the opening of a State aid investigation are manifestly absent from the case; second, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings provide an advantage; third, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings are selective; fourth, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and an error of fact in finding that the tax rulings are liable to distort competition and/or have an effect on intra-Community trade; and fifth, that the contested decision lacks reasoning.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision errs in law in diverting the Commission's initial investigation and artificially ‘extending’ the Income Tax Act procedure to rulings.
Case T-785/16: Action brought on 9 November 2016 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01005301.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/53





Action brought on 9 November 2016 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)
(Case T-785/16)
(2017/C 006/66)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA (Huarte-Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DKSH International Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Ufesa’ — Application for registration No 10 857 29

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 1691/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-746/15: Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Biofa v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant protection products — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 — Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-11-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, health risk, market approval, pesticide, plant health control








C_2017006EN.01003701.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/37





Order of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Biofa v Commission
(Case T-746/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Plant protection products - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 - Approval of the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 006/46)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Biofa AG (Münsingen, Germany) (represented by: C. Stallberg and S. Knoblich, and subsequently by C. Stallberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, G. von Rintelen and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2069 of 17 November 2015 approving the basic substance sodium hydrogen carbonate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2015 L 301, p. 42).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the application to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark.










3.


Biofa AG shall pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.










4.


The Kingdom of Denmark shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.