ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 428/4

Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Wolf Oil Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 1 June 2016 in Case T-34/15: Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-437/16 P)

(2016/C 428/05)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Wolf Oil Corp. (represented by: P. Maeyaert, J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the General Court of 1 June 2016 in case T-34/15

— order the EUIPO and the intervener at first instance to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its appeal, the appellant (Wolf Oil), asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 in case T-34/15 (‘judgment under appeal’), in which the General Court rejected the action brought by Wolf Oil against the decision of Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5). The appeal is based on two pleas in law.

By its first plea, Wolf Oil challenges the judgement under appeal for a lack of proper motivation and distortion of evidence, to the extent that it failed to provide any response to a number of arguments and inconsistencies raised by Wolf Oil in support of the plea that the EUIPO had incorrectly applied the likelihood of confusion (Article 8.1.b) of Regulation (EC) on the European Union Trademark Regulation (1) (as recently amended by Regulation 2015/2424 (2)) (‘EUTMR’).

By its second plea, Wolf alleges that the judgment under appeal has violated Article 8.1.b) EUTMR, by having wrongly applied the principles of a likelihood of confusion. The plea is divided into three parts. The first two parts of the second plea allege an incorrect interpretation of the rule, well-established in the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice, that conceptual differences between two trademarks may, to some extent, counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between them. The third part of the second plea challenges the judgement under appeal to the extent that, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, it failed to account of the actual use of the trademarks made on the market.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark OJ L 78, p. 1

(2) Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) OJ L 341, p. 21
2.

Does the aforementioned concept of use of vehicles, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of First Directive 72/166, encompass an agricultural tractor, which was stationary on a flat mud track on a farm and was being used, as was usual, in the performance of agricultural work (herbicide spraying in a vineyard), with the engine running to drive the pump in the drum containing the herbicide, and which, in those circumstances, as the result of a landslip caused by the combination of the following factors: — the weight of the tractor, — the vibration produced by the tractor’s engine and by the spraying device mounted on the back of the tractor, — heavy rain, fell downwards hitting four workers who were carrying out the same task on the lower terraces, causing the death of a worker who was supporting the hose that was being used for spraying?
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Italy) lodged on 14 September 2016 — Sicurbau Srl and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others

(Case C-493/16)

(2016/C 454/31)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Sicurbau Srl, IGR — Imprese Generali Riunite Srl, Iterga Costruzioni Generali SpA, Pa.Co. — Pacifico Costruzioni SpA

Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Autorità Portuale di Napoli, Soa Rina SpA

Question referred

Do the Community principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, together with the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, laid down in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), as well as the principles deriving therefrom, such as equality of treatment, non-discrimination, mutual recognition, proportionality and transparency, referred to (most recently) in Directive 2014/24/EU, (1) preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation founded on the combined provisions of Articles 87(4) and 86(3 bis) of Legislative Decree No 163 of 2006 and Article 26(6) of Legislative Decree No 81 of 2008, as interpreted, with a view to securing proper respect for, and uniform application of, the law, pursuant to Article 99 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, by judgments No 3 and No 9 of 2015 of the Plenary Assembly of the Consiglio di Stato, according to which the failure to list the corporate safety and security costs separately in tenders in a procedure for the award of a public works contract inevitably results in the exclusion of the tendering undertaking concerned, even in the case where the obligation to list that information separately was not set out in the tender rules, and even though, in substantive terms, the tender in question took into account the minimum costs of corporate safety and security?

(1) Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 14/28

Appeal brought on 16 November 2016 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-386/14: Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission

(Case C-579/16 P)

(2017/C 014/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Blanck-Putz, A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: FIH Holding A/S, FIH Erhvervsbank A/S

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission;

— rule itself on the application at first instance and reject the application as unfounded in law; and

— order the respondents and applicants at first instance to pay the costs of the proceedings.

In the alternative, the appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2016, notified to the Commission on 16 September 2016, in Case T-386/14 Fih Holding and Fih Erhvervsbank v Commission; and

— refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second plea at first instance; and

— reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The General Court erred in law in finding that to establish the presence of State aid in the 2012 measures the Commission was required to apply the market economy creditor test in light of the cost which would have arisen for Denmark had it not adopted those measures. That finding of the General Court is a legal error because the cost in question is the direct consequence of the previous award of State aid by Denmark in favour of FIH and the consistent case-law of the Court makes clear that the Commission cannot take such a cost into account when it examines if a Member State has acted as a market economy operator would have done.
3.

If the reply to question 2 is in the affirmative, does the aforementioned Directive 2014/24 preclude, because it does not ensure genuine competition or circumvents the mandate to award the contract to the tender with the best quality/price ratio, a clause such as that at issue, in which the price factor is evaluated only for tenders which have obtained 35 out of 50 points in the technical criteria?
3.

Does the answer to the first question or the second question differ in circumstances where the national law of the member state enabled an operator of a clearance service, where it receives approval from the taxation authority, to elect that no Stamp Duty is payable on the transfer of shares into the clearance service but that SDRT is instead charged on each subsequent sale of shares within the clearance service (at the rate of 0,5 % of the sale consideration)?
2.

Insofar as Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 is applicable: When passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airport, is the final destination of the passengers to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, even if the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 is based on the disruption of the first leg of the journey and the claim has been brought against the air carrier which operated the first flight, which is not a party to the contract of carriage?
2.

If the first question is answered in the negative, are Articles 68(l) and 67(1) of the EU Succession Regulation in any case to be interpreted as meaning that the share of the surviving spouse may be recorded in full in the European Certificate of Succession, even if a portion of it stems from an increase pursuant to a rule governing matrimonial property regimes like Paragraph 1371(1) of the Civil Code? If this question is to be answered in the negative in principle, can it nevertheless be answered in the affirmative exceptionally for situations where (a) the purpose of the Certificate of Succession is limited to asserting rights of the heirs in a certain other Member States to property of the deceased located there, and (b) the ruling on succession (Articles 4 and 21 of the EU Succession Regulation) and — irrespective of which conflict-of-law rules are applied — the questions relating to matrimonial property regimes are to be assessed on the basis of the same national legal system.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

(Case C-550/16)

(2017/C 038/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

In matters relating to family reunification for refugees, must the term ‘unaccompanied minor’, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, also cover a third-country national or stateless person below the age of 18 who arrives on the territory of a Member State unaccompanied by an adult responsible by law or custom and who:

— applies for asylum,

— during the asylum procedure, attains the age of 18 on the territory of the Member State,

— is granted asylum with retroactive effect to the date of the application, and

— subsequently applies for family reunification?

(1) Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Does this also apply where the employment relationship is between two private persons?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 70/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

(Case C-645/16)

(2017/C 070/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Question referred

Does Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) apply where termination of the commercial agency contract occurs during the trial period provided for in that contract?

(1) OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.
1.

Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, this precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?
3.

In the event that the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive), (2) which allows the Member States to lay down the detailed rules for the adjustment provided for in Article 185 of the VAT Directive, authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member State, to provide in its national law that the taxable amount may be reduced only if the payment on account is refunded, and that the VAT debt and the deduction of input tax are, accordingly, to be adjusted at the same time and under the same conditions?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 78/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 December 2016 — Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV v NV BSH Home Appliances

(Case C-632/16)

(2017/C 078/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Dyson Ltd, Dyson BV

Defendant: NV BSH Home Appliances

Questions referred

1) Can strict compliance with the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation (1) (without supplementing the label as defined in Annex II thereof with information about the test conditions which lead to the classification in an energy efficiency class in accordance with Annex I) be regarded as a misleading omission within the meaning of Article 7 of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive? (2)

2) Does the Vacuum Cleaner Regulation preclude supplementing the label with other symbols which communicate the same information?

(1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 665/2013 of 3 May 2013 supplementing Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to energy labelling of vacuum cleaners (OJ 2013 L 192, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 95/4

Action brought on 27 July 2016 — Mauro Infante v Italian Republic

(Case C-469/16)

(2017/C 095/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mauro Infante (represented by: M. Iervolino, lawyer)

Defendant: Italian Republic

By order of 13 December 2016, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) held that the Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction with regard to the application and that Mr Mauro is to bear his own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/8

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2016 — Florian Hanig v Air France SA

(Case C-637/16)

(2017/C 086/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Florian Hanig

Defendant: Air France SA

Question referred

Must heading (b) of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘intra-Community’ also extends to those territories that are so-called ‘overseas countries and territories’ under Annex II to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, for which only the special arrangements for association set out in Part Four of the TFEU apply?

(1) OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 121/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-654/16)

(2017/C 121/13)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Amber Capital Italia Sgr SpA, Amber Capital Uk Llp

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Question referred

Is the proper application of the first and second subparagraphs of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids, (1) in the light of the general principles laid down in Article 3(1) thereof, and in the light of the proper application of the general principles relating to protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality, reasonableness, transparency and non-discrimination, prevented by a provision of national law such as Article 106(3)(d)(2) of Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 (consolidating all provisions in the field of financial intermediation within the meaning of Articles 8 and 21 of Law No 52 of 6 February 1996), as subsequently amended, and Article 47 octies of the Decision of the Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa — Consob No 11971 of 14 May 1999 (Order implementing Legislative Decree No 58 of 24 February 1998 laying down rules applicable to offerees), as subsequently amended, in so far as those provisions, in authorising Consob to increase the price of the takeover bid as referred to in Article 106 where collusion is found between, on the one hand, the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and, on the other, one or more sellers, simply refer to the criterion of the ‘price ascertained’ without specifying the parameters and criteria for such a finding?

(1) OJ 2004 L 142, p. 12.
5.

Is an application for international protection deemed to have been lodged for the purposes of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 when a certificate of registration as an asylum seeker is first issued or only when a formal asylum application is recorded? In particular: (a) Is the certificate of registration as an asylum seeker a form or a report within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013? (b) Is the competent authority within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 the authority responsible for receiving the form or for preparing the report or the authority responsible for the decision on the asylum application? (c) Has a report prepared by the authorities reached the competent authority even if that authority was informed of the main content of the form or the report, or must the original or a copy of the report be communicated to it for that purpose?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 277/20

Appeal brought on 21 December 2016 by Laboratoire de la mer against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 October 2016 in Case T-109/16: Laboratoire de la mer v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-662/16 P)

(2017/C 277/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Laboratoire de la mer (represented by: J. Blanchard, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of 20 June 2017 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 144/14

Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)

(Case C-576/16 P)

(2017/C 144/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: TVR Italia Srl (represented by: F. Caricato, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, TVR Automotive Ltd

By order of 2 March 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered TVR Italia Srl to bear its own costs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/19

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 18 January 2017 — Vincent Pierre Oberle

(Case C-20/17)

(2017/C 112/27)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vincent Pierre Oberle

Question referred

Is Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) (Regulation No 650/2012) to be interpreted as meaning that it also determines exclusive international jurisdiction in respect of the granting, in the Member States, of national certificates of succession which have not been replaced by the European certificate of succession (see Article 62(3) of Regulation No 650/2012), with the result that divergent provisions adopted by national legislatures with regard to international jurisdiction in respect of the granting of national certificates of succession — such as Paragraph 105 of the Familiengesetzbuch (the Family Code) in Germany — are ineffective on the ground that they infringe higher-ranking European law?

(1) OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/17

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 January 2017 — Maria Tirkkonen

(Case C-9/17)

(2017/C 086/21)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maria Tirkkonen

Other party: Maaseutuvirasto

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(a) of Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the definition of ‘public contract’ within the meaning of that directive encompasses a scheme

— by which a public body seeks to obtain services in the market for a contractual period limited in advance by entering into contracts, subject to the conditions of a draft framework agreement annexed to the invitation to tender, with all economic operators who meet the individual requirements laid down in the tender documents in regard to the suitability of the offeror and to the service offered, and pass an examination more particularly described in the invitation to tender, and

— which can no longer be joined during the currency of the contract?

(1) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).