ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Lotte Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office

(Case C-586/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - EU trade mark - Figurative mark including a word element in Japanese and a picture of a koala in a tree holding a small koala - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national three-dimensional mark KOALA-BÄREN and earlier figurative mark KOALA - Proof of genuine use of the mark - Use of the mark in a form differing by elements not altering the distinctive character of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2016/C 454/24)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Lotte Co. Ltd (represented by: M. Knitter, lawyer)

The other parties to the proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Dismisses the appeal;

2) Orders Lotte Co. Ltd to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH;

3) The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 161/17

Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma — Italy) — X v Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

(Case C-167/15) (1)

(2017/C 161/22)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/7

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2016 — VSM Geneesmiddelen BV v European Commission

(Case C-637/15 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Public health - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Health claims on foods - Article 13(3) - Community list of permitted health claims on foods - Botanical substances - Claims on hold - Action for failure to act and for annulment - Definition of position by the European Commission - Challengeable act))

(2017/C 063/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (represented by: U. Grundmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and S.Grünheid, Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene lodged by the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE).

3. VSM Geneesmiddelen BV shall pay the costs relating to the appeal proceedings.

4. VSM Geneesmiddelen BV and the European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (EUCOPE) shall bear their own costs relating to EUCOPE’s application for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 343/17

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

(Case C-55/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax - Right to reimbursement - Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC - Conditions for obtaining reimbursement - Imposition of conditions other than those laid down in Articles 3 and 4 - Obligation to provide proof of payment of the tax - Whether permissible))

(2016/C 343/27)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești

Operative part of the order

Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, precludes legislation of a Member State under which, in order to exercise their right to reimbursement of value added tax, taxable persons are subject to a general obligation to provide proof of payment of that tax.

(1) OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 112/13

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 January 2017 — Amrita Soc. coop. Arl and Others v European Commission

(Case C-280/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Protection of plant health - Directive 2000/29/EC - Protection against the introduction into and spread within the European Union of organisms harmful to plants or plant products - Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 - Measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Wells and Raju) - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act - Implementing measures - Person individually concerned))

(2017/C 112/18)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellants: Amrita Soc. coop. arl, Cesi Marta, Comune Agricola Lunella Soc. mutua coop. arl, Rollo Olga, Borrello Claudia, Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa di Consiglia, Marta e Vito Lisi, Marzo Luigi, Stasi Anna Maria, Azienda Agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi, Castriota Maria Grazia, Azienda Agricola di Canioni Fiorella, Azienda Agricola Spirdo ss agr., Impresa Agricola Stefania Stamerra, Azienda Agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco, Simone Cosimo Antonio, Masseria Alti Pareti Soc. agr. arl (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Amrita Soc. coop. arl, Dei Agre di Cesi Marta, Comune agricola Lunella Soc. mutua coop. arl, Azienda agricola Rollo Olga, Azienda agricola Borrello Claudia, Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa SNC, Azienda agricola di Marzo Luigi, Azienda agricola Stasi Anna Maria, Azienda agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi, Azienda agricola di Castriota Maria Grazia, Azienda agricola di Cagnoni Fiorella, Azienda agricola Spirdo ss agr., Impresa Agricola Stamerra Stefania, Azienda agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco, Azienda agricola di Simone Cosimo Antonio and Masseria Alti Pareti Soc. agr. Arl are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 86/4

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 13 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Semeraro

(Case C-484/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2012/29/EU - Article 2(1)(a) - Minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 49, 51, 53 and 54 - Offence of defamation - Repeal by the national legislature of the offence of defamation - Lack of connection to EU law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2017/C 086/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Taranto

Criminal proceedings against

Antonio Semeraro

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Taranto (Justice of the Peace, Taranto, Italy), made by decision of 2 September 2016.

(1) OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 195/6

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) v European Commission

(Case C-464/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Request for access to Commission documents - Refusal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation before the EU Courts - Lawyer who is not a third party in relation to the appellant - Action manifestly inadmissible - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 195/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) (represented by: D. Lazar, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Pénzügyi Ismeretterjesztő és Érdek-képviseleti Egyesület (PITEE) shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/3

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission

(Case C-240/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))

(2017/C 129/03)

Language of the case: Croatian

Parties

Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Vedran Vidmar, Mr Saša Čaldarević, Ms Irena Glogovšek, Ms Gordana Grancarić, Ms Martina Grgec, Ms Ines Grubišić, Ms Sunčica Horvat Peris, Mr Zlatko Ilak, Ms Mirjana Jelavić, Mr Romuald Kantoci, Ms Svjetlana Klobučar, Mr Ivan Kobaš, Ms Tihana Ms Kušeta Šerić, Mr Damir Lemaić, Mr Željko Ljubičić, Ms Gordana Mahovac, Ms Martina Majcen, Ms Višnja Merdžo, Mr Tomislav Perić, Mr Darko Radić and Mr Damjan Saridžić are ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 300/9

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 July 2017 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH v European Chemicals Agency

(Case C-663/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Article 95 - European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) - Publication of a list of active substances - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance))

(2017/C 300/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (represented by: M. Grunchard and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: M. Heikkilä and C. Buchanan, Agents, and P. Oliver, Barrister)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH and Ecolab Deutschland GmbH shall pay the costs.

3. Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH, Ecolab Deutschland GmbH, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), BASF SE and Oxea GmbH shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.

(1) OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 213/15

Order of the Court of 27 April 2017 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)) — Michael Tibor Bachmann v FAER IFN SA

(Case C-535/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 2(b) - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Notion of ‘consumer’ - Natural person having concluded an agreement for novation with a credit institution in order to meet repayment obligations to that institution in respect of credit obtained by a commercial company))

(2017/C 213/17)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Specializat Mureş (Romania)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Michael Tibor Bachmann

Defendant: FAER IFN SA

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a natural person who, following a novation agreement, has undertaken by contract to repay to a lending institution loans originally granted to a company for purposes inherent in that company’s business activity, where that natural person has no evident link with that company but acted in that way on the basis of his links, outside his trade, business or profession, with the person who controlled that company and also with the person who signed contracts ancillary to the original loan contracts (contracts of guarantee, contracts providing immovable property as security/mortgages).

(1) OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/3

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 December 2017 — Ireland v Aughinish Alumina Ltd, European Commission

(Case C-369/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - State aid - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Existing or new aid - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(i) and (iv), and (d) - Limitation - Article 15 - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations))

(2018/C 063/03)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, L. Williams and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by P. McGarry, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the appellant: French Republic (represented by: R. Coesme and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: C. Little and C. Waterson, Solicitors), European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

3. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 5/15

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 2017 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Colmar — France) — Criminal proceedings against Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG and Stefan Nikless

(Case C-474/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Applicable legislation - A1 certificate - Probative value))

(2018/C 005/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Colmar

Parties to the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

Belu Dienstleistung GmbH & Co KG, Stefan Nikless

Interveners: Syndicat Prism’emploi, Union départementale CGT du Bas-Rhin and Union de recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d’allocations familiales d’Alsace (Urssaf), assuming the rights of the Urssaf du Bas-Rhin

Operative part of the order

Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate, issued by the institution designated by the competent authority of a Member State under Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the work is carried out and the courts of that Member State, even where it is found by those courts that the conditions under which the worker concerned carries out his activities clearly do not come within the material scope of that provision of Regulation No 883/2004.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante — Spain) — Bankia SA v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

(Case C-486/16) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Articles 6 and 7 - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Accelerated repayment term in a mortgage loan agreement - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Question identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled or where the reply to such a question may be clearly deduced from existing case-law - Powers of the national court when dealing with a term regarded as ‘unfair’ - Replacement of the unfair term with a provision of national law - Principle of effectiveness - Principle of procedural autonomy)

(2020/C 19/04)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bankia SA

Defendants: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Operative part of the order

Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and the principle of effectiveness must be interpreted, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, as not precluding that a national court of first instance may be bound by a decision delivered by an appeal court requiring the initiation of an enforcement procedure taking into account the seriousness of the consumer’s failure to fulfil his obligations under the mortgage loan agreement, even if that agreement contains a term declared unfair in an earlier judgment which has become final, but which does not have the force of res judicata under national law.

(1) OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 190/18

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 23 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Synthon BV v Astellas Pharma Inc.

(Case C-644/16) (1)

(2018/C 190/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 86, 20.3.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 249/15

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva

(Case C-67/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(2)(a) - Scope - Matters excluded - Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Dissolution of the marriage - Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage))

(2017/C 249/22)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Todor Iliev

Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva

Operative part of the order

Article 1(2)(a) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, relating to the liquidation of property — acquired during marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State — after a divorce has taken place, does not come within the scope of that regulation but comes rather within the scope of matrimonial property regimes and, consequently, within the scope of the exclusions listed in Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/10

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 24 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu — Poland) — Skarb Państwa reprezentowany przez Wojewodę Dolnośląskiego v Gmina Trzebnica

(Case C-19/17) (1)

(2018/C 013/14)

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 374/24

Order of the President of the Court of 28 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

(Case C-255/17) (1)

(2017/C 374/36)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 283, 28.8.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 166/17

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma — Italy) — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

(Case C-125/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Free movement of capital - Articles 64 and 65 TFEU - Directive 2011/16/EU - Cooperation in the field of taxation - Transfer of capital to the Vatican City State - Obligation to declare a transfer of funds sent or received from abroad - Repeal))

(2018/C 166/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Luigi Bisignani

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

Operative part of the order

Article 64(1) and Article 65(1)(a) TFEU must be interpreted to the effect that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which definitively repeals the offence of not declaring transfers of funds abroad.

(1) OJ C 213, 3.7.2017.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 83/18

Order of the President of the Court of 14 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV

(Case C-269/17) (1)

(2018/C 083/26)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.