ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/17

Appeal brought on 12 June 2015 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 Matratzen Concord v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-295/15 P)

(2015/C 302/22)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (represented by: I. Selting, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), KBT & Co. Ernst Kruchen agenzia commerciale sociétá in accomandita

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the decision of the Sixth Chamber of the General Court of 16 April 2015 in Case T-258/13 concerning the cancellation of the Community trade mark 281 86 80 ‘Arktis’ due to lack of genuine use;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant alleges the following errors of law in the decision of the General Court:

The General Court wrongly took into account the sales figures of the company Breiding in favour of the contested mark. The number of items sold by the company Breiding during the period at issue from 2006 to 2009 should not have been taken into account.

When examining the genuine use, the General Court wrongly took into account not the goods marked ‘Arktis’ but the goods marked ‘Arktis Line’ and took the view that the addition ‘Line’ is exclusively descriptive.

In addition, the General Court exercised its discretion wrongly in finding that there was genuine use of the contested mark although the trade mark proprietor’s goods turnovers were extremely small.

Lastly, the General Court did not have regard to the fact that the genuine use at issue concerns ‘bedding’ and ‘bed blankets’. However, the trade mark proprietor submitted evidence only of use of the mark for ‘bed blankets’ and not for other bedding such as pillows and mattresses. For this reason at least ‘bedding’ must be cancelled from the mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 302/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Adrien Kauffmann v Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

(Case C-402/15)

(2015/C 302/36)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Adrien Kauffmann

Respondent: Ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Questions referred

In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, being the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

— should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that he must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

— should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

— From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

(1) OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

(2) EU:C:2013:411.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/24

Appeal brought on 30 June 2015 by Polynt SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2015 in Case T-134/13: Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

(Case C-323/15 P)

(2015/C 311/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Polynt SpA (represented by: C. Mereu, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), Sitre Srl, New Japan Chemical, REACh ChemAdvice GmbH, Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13; and

— Annul the contested decision or alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant’s Application for annulment; and

— Order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings, including the costs before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for annulment of the Contested Decision, the General Court breached Community law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed a number of errors in its reasoning and interpretation of the legal framework as applicable to the Appellant’s situation. That resulted in the General Court making the following errors in law:

— The General Court made contradictory and erroneous statements with respect to the need to have regard to risk assessment pursuant to Article 57(f) of REACH (1), leading to a misinterpretation of the same.

— The General Court made contradictory statements and departed from established case law on the status and weight of guidance documents in interpreting what is meant by ‘equivalent level of concern’ under Article 57(f) of the same.

— The General Court flawed reliance on Article 60(2) of REACH led to insufficient reasoning.

— The General Court applied the wrong legal text in dismissing the arguments relating to worker and consumer exposure, thereby misapplying Article 57(f).

For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-134/13 should be set aside and the Contested Decision should be annulled.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Autorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing an European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC AND 2000/21/EC, OJ L 396 p. 1
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/21

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 June 2015 — Criminal proceedings against G.M. and M.S.

(Case C-303/15)

(2015/C 311/25)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings

G.M. and M.S.

Question referred

Is Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that in the event of failure to communicate regulations, which are considered to be technical regulations, different consequences are possible: as regards regulations which concern the freedoms which are not subject to the restrictions of Article 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the failure to communicate must have the consequence that those regulations cannot be applied; whereas, as regards regulations which concern the freedoms which are subject to the restrictions of Article 36 of the Treaty, the national court, which at the same time is an EU court, may assess whether those regulations, despite the failure to communicate, comply with the requirements of Article 36 of the Treaty and can be applied?

(1) OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37.
1.

On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) and Article 14(1)(a) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (2), does a person who, as is clear from his application, is seeking not recruitment and employment but merely the status of applicant in order to bring claims for compensation also qualify as seeking ‘access to employment, to self-employment or to occupation’?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 337/2

Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Arthur Lambauer against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 11 December 2014 in Case T-490/14, Arthur Lambauer v Council of the European Union

(Case C-52/15 P)

(2015/C 337/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Arthur Lambauer

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

By order of 3 September 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.
4.

If the three associations of persons are to be regarded as three independent traders (taxable persons), are they, as wine growers and therefore farmers, flat-rate farmers if each of those associations of persons which cooperate in practice is in itself covered by the flat-rate scheme for farmers, but the limited company, an association of persons formed of the members of the three associations of persons or an association of persons formed of the limited company and the members of the three associations of persons is, under national law, not covered by the flat-rate scheme on account of the size of the business or its legal form?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 354/27

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.

(Case C-458/15)

(2015/C 354/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Party to the main proceedings

K.B.

Question referred

Is the placing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 11 August 2007 to 27 November 2009 (inclusive) resulting in particular from Council Decisions 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 (2), 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 (3), 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (4), 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 (5), and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 (6) illegal?

(1) OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

(2) OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

(3) OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

(4) OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

(5) OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.

(6) OJ 2009 L 151, p. 14.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/9

Appeal brought on 10 August 2015 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 4 June 2015 in Case T-222/14, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (Deluxe)

(Case C-437/15 P)

(2015/C 346/11)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings: Deluxe Laboratories, Inc.

Form of order sought

OHIM claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment under appeal;

— order the applicant before the General Court to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

OHIM claims that the judgment under appeal should be annulled since the General Court infringed the first sentence of Article 75 of the CTMR (1) in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the CTMR, for reasons which may be summarised as follows:

1. The General Court erred in excluding the possibility of a general statement of reasons for various products and services when the perception of the sign in respect of each of them is uniform and, consequently, the reasoning applicable in respect of each of them is invariable.

2. To require OHIM to repeat systematically the same reasoning for each of the products or services, or uniform categories of products or services, amounts to making the duty to state reasons a purely formal obligation.

3. The Board of Appeal expressly identified the reasons for which the sign, in relation to any of the products and services in question, would be perceived solely as an indication of the superior quality of that product or service.

4. It is sufficient that the products and services have a common feature in order to make possible a statement of reasons in respect of all of them, if the sign lacks distinctive character as a result of that feature. In the present case, that common feature is that each of the products and services in question, without exception, are capable of being of high or low quality, with the result that the indication of superior quality is perceived in respect of each and every one of them as a mere selling point.

5. The General Court erred in its interpretation of the concept established in the case-law of a ‘sufficiently uniform’ category of products or services, leading it to limit unduly the criteria for assessing that concept. In the present case, the common feature identified by the Board of Appeal supports the finding that the products and services in question form a sufficiently uniform category which permits a general statement of reasons.

6. The judgment under appeal is not in accordance with the existing case-law, in particular with the order of 11 December 2014 in FTI Touristik GmbH v OHIM (BigXtra), C-253/14 P, EU:C:2014:2445.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of the Council of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 363/20

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Wolfgang Schmidt v Christiane Schmidt

(Case C-417/15)

(2015/C 363/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wolfgang Schmidt

Defendant: Christiane Schmidt

Question referred

Does a proceeding concerning the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract and the registration of the removal of an entry evidencing the donee’s right of ownership fall within the scope of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 (1), which provides for exclusive jurisdiction over rights in rem in immovable property?

(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
2.

Is Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision of the State of registry (Austria) under which certification of the authenticity of signatures on instruments which are necessary for the creation or transfer of rights to property is reserved to public notaries, with the effect that a declaration of the authenticity of a signature by a lawyer established in the Czech Republic made in his State of establishment is not recognised in the State of registry, despite this declaration being accorded the legal effect of an official certification under Czech law, in particular because, a. the question of the recognition of a declaration of the authenticity of a signature on a request for entry in the land register of the State of registry made in the Czech Republic by a lawyer established there relates to the provision of a service by a lawyer the content of which is not possible for lawyers established in the State of registry, and the refusal to recognise it is therefore not subject to the prohibition of restrictions on recognition or b. such a reservation is justified to ensure the legality and legal certainty of acts (instruments relating to legal transactions) and as a consequence is required for reasons of public interest and is also necessary to achieve this objective in the State of registry?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/18

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 31 August 2015 — Verners Pudāns

(Case C-462/15)

(2015/C 381/21)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Verners Pudāns

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Must Article 29(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 (1) establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, be interpreted as allowing, in principle, a Member State to apply income tax to payments under the support schemes listed in Annex I to that regulation?

(1) OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.
2.

Are Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of the European Union must reject an application for extradition emanating from a non-Member State concerning an EU citizen residing in that Member State where the criminal proceedings from which the application for extradition arose and the decision rendered in absentia in the non-Member State did not respect the minimum standard of international law and the non-mandatory principles of the public order of the European Union (ordre public) or the right to a fair trial?
2.

At paragraphs 38 and 39 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied Rules 15(2)(h)(iii), 17(1)(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/1995 (2) and Articles 75 and 78(1)(a)(b) of Regulation 207/2009. At paragraph 41 and 42 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied 80(1)(2)(3) of Regulation 207/2009, Rule 53 and 53a of Regulation 2868/1995 and overlooked page 4, paragraph 5, of the Communication No. 11/98 of the President of the Office from the Manual Concerning Proceedings Before The Office For Harmonization In The Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Part A General Rules Section 6 Revocation Of Decision And Cancellation Of Entries In The Register And Correction Of Errors. At paragraphs 43, 44 and 45 of the Appealed order the General Court misapplied Articles 63(2) and 64 of Regulation No. 207/2009 and thus failed to recognized that the Board of Appeal infringed the principles of legal certainty and procedural economy and the aim of the opposition proceedings by failing in their obligation to enable conflicts between trademarks before registration and, contrary to the rules, failing to take into consideration facts, circumstance and evidence provided by Real Express Srl which were relevant to the outcome of the opposition proceedings.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/22

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Álava (Spain) lodged on 5 October 2015 — Laboral Kutxa v Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

(Case C-525/15)

(2015/C 414/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Álava

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laboral Kutxa

Defendant: Esmeralda Martínez Quesada

Question referred

Is the limitation of the consequences of holding a term to be ineffective because unfair, restricting the effects of restitution of sums paid but not due, by applying it from a particular date instead of from the moment the unfair, void term was first applied, compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not binding, laid down in Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

(1) OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29.
2.

If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, in that case is the relevant provision of the directive compatible with Article 34 TFEU, despite the fact that application thereof is likely to have the effect of restricting trade?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 414/23

Action brought on 23 October 2015 — European Commission v Ireland

(Case C-552/15)

(2015/C 414/30)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier, J. Tomkin, agents)

Defendant: Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by levying a full amount of registration tax upon the registration by an Irish resident of a motor vehicle leased or rented in another Member State, without taking account of the duration of the use, where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Ireland on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that way, and by setting conditions for a refund of this tax which go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The national legislation at issue

Ireland's Finance Act, 1992 (as amended) provides for the imposition of a tax on the registration of motor vehicles imported into the State. Pursuant to that Act, importers of vehicles are required to discharge, upon registration, the entire tax applicable for permanent registration. This requirement applies to all imported cars regardless of the intended and actual duration of their use in the State and includes cars that are hired or leased from abroad for pre-determined limited periods of time. While the Irish authorities have introduced the possibility to obtain a subsequent refund of excess tax paid, such a refund may only be granted following inspection and exportation of the vehicle at issue. There is no provision for interest to be paid on excess tax which had been retained and a EUR 500 fee is charged for the administration of the refund procedure.

Principal arguments

The Commission considers that Ireland's system for taxing the registration of motor vehicles imposes a disproportionate cash-flow and financial burden on Irish residents seeking to import hired or leased cars for pre-determined limited periods of time. In the Commission's view, the national rules at issue make it considerably more difficult and costly to hire and lease cars from other Member States than it is to hire or lease cars from undertakings established in Ireland. The Commission submits that Ireland's vehicle registration tax is liable to impede the provision and receipt of leasing and hiring services, is disproportionate, and therefore in breach of Article 56 TFEU.