do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-41/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Min Liu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-813/14: Liu v EUIPO
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, micro-computer, packaging product








C_2016326EN.01000703.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/7





Appeal brought on 25 January 2016 by Min Liu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-813/14: Liu v EUIPO
(Case C-41/16 P)
(2016/C 326/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Min Liu (represented by: Y. Zhang, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 8 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-39/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: expenditure, interest, parent company, share, subsidiary, tax law, tax offence








C_2016136EN.01001301.xml










18.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-39/16)
(2016/C 136/18)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code, in the version which was in force for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, infringe Article 4(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1)), in so far as that article of the Income Tax Code provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the amount of the dividends qualifying for exemption under Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares which, at the time of their transfer, had not been held for an uninterrupted period of at least one year, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?










2.


Does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code, in the version which was in force for the 2000 and 2001 tax years, constitute a provision for the prevention of fraud or abuse within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Parent-Subsidiary Directive of 23 July 1990 (Council Directive 90/435/EEC), and, if so, does Article 198(10) of the 1992 Income Tax Code go further than is necessary in order to combat such fraud or abuse in so far as it provides that interest is not to be regarded as a business expense up to an amount corresponding to the dividends qualifying for exemption under Articles 202 to 204 where those dividends are derived from shares which, at the time of their transfer, had not been held for an uninterrupted period of at least one year, in which connection no distinction is made according to whether those interest payments relate to (the financing of) the holding from which the dividends qualifying for exemption were derived or not?






(1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6).
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2016027EN.01000101.xml










25.1.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/1





Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 027/01)

Last publication


OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


Past publications


OJ C 7, 11.1.2016


OJ C 429, 21.12.2015


OJ C 414, 14.12.2015


OJ C 406, 7.12.2015


OJ C 398, 30.11.2015


OJ C 389, 23.11.2015

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case C-38/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 25 January 2016 — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, equal treatment, fiscal policy, general legal principle








C_2016106EN.01002701.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 25 January 2016 — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
(Case C-38/16)
(2016/C 106/29)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Compass Contract Services Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Questions referred







1.


Does the UK’s different treatment of output tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 4 December 1996) and input tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 1 May 1997 — i.e. later than output tax Fleming claims) result in:






a)


a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment; and/or










b)


a breach of the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality; and/or










c)


a breach of the EU law principle of effectiveness; and/or










d)


a breach of any other relevant EU law principle?














2.


If the answer to any of Question 1(a) to 1(d) is affirmative, how should output tax Fleming claims relating to the period from 4 December 1996 to 30 April 1997 be treated?
Case T-23/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01002901.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/29





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Biernacka-Hoba v EUIPO — Formata Bogusław Hoba (Formata)
(Case T-23/16)
(2016/C 111/34)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Ilona Biernacka-Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formata Bogusław Hoba (Aleksandrów Łódzki, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Formata’ — Community trade mark No 11 529 427

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2015 in Case R 102/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action to be well founded;










—


annul the contested decision insofar as it dismisses the application for cancellation of Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;










—


amend the contested decision by cancelling Trade Mark No 011529427 ‘Formata’;










—


amend the contested decision with regard to the costs;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-31/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Juwel)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01004101.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/41





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — adp Gauselmann v OHIM (Juwel)
(Case T-31/16)
(2016/C 106/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Juwel’ — Application for registration No 12 426 888

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2015 in Case R 2571/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Neither Article 7(1)(b) nor Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 is applicable.
Case T-32/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU financing arrangements, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, cessation of farming, common agricultural policy, early retirement, financial loss, rural development








C_2016098EN.01005701.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/57





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-32/16)
(2016/C 098/73)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it excludes expenditure of a total of EUR 584 299,25 incurred by the Czech Republic,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy.






—


The Commission decided to exclude the expenditure from EU financing although there was no breach of EU or national law. It wrongly assumed that the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement required a change of a rural development programme within the meaning of Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.














2.


Should the Court not uphold the first plea in law, the applicant puts forward a second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013.






—


Even if the application of a lower maximum age in the case of support for early retirement without a change to a rural development programme constituted an infringement of Regulation No 1698/2005 (quod non), the Commission incorrectly assessed the importance of that infringement and the financial damage to the European Union. The importance of any infringement is minimal and there was no financial damage to the European Union.
Case T-39/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Fink (NANA FINK)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01004301.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/43





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Fink (NANA FINK)
(Case T-39/16)
(2016/C 106/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: T. Boddien, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nadine Fink (Basle, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: 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 elements ‘NANA FINK’ — International registration designating the European Union No IR 1 111 651

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2015 in Case R 679/2014-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in opposition proceedings B 2 125 543 (International trade mark registration No IR 1 111 651);










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-25/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Haw Par v OHIM — Cosmowell (GelenkGold)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003901.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/39





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Haw Par v OHIM — Cosmowell (GelenkGold)
(Case T-25/16)
(2016/C 106/45)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Haw Par Corp. Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: R. Härer, C. Schultze, J. Ossing, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Gehweiler, C. Brockmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmowell GmbH (Sankt Johann in Tirol, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘GelenkGold’ — Community trade mark No 9 957 978

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1907/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs that the applicant incurred before the General Court and before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-29/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01003902.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/39





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Caffè Nero Group v OHIM (CAFFÈ NERO)
(Case T-29/16)
(2016/C 106/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Caffè Nero Group Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Cassidy, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CAFFÈ NERO’ — Application for registration No 13 238 019

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 410/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow Community trade mark application No. 13238019 to proceed to registration;










—


waive the objections to the CTM Application under Articles 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) and Article 7(2);










—


allows the CTM Application to proceed to acceptance and advertisement for all covered goods and services;










—


order OHIM to pay the Applicant’s costs in this matter.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-22/16: Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative powers, advertising malpractice, damages, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, interest, money laundering








C_2016106EN.01003701.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/37





Action brought on 25 January 2016 — Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções and Others v ECB
(Case T-22/16)
(2016/C 106/43)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicants: Comprojecto-Projectos e Construções, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Julião Maria Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon), Paulo Eduardo Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) and Isabel Maria Matos Gomes de Azevedo (Lisbon) (represented by: M.A. Ribeiro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


Declare, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, that the European Central Bank, by failing to pursue the complaint presented by the applicants on 27 November 2015, unjustifiably abstained from giving a decision, despite having been requested to do.










—


In the alternative, annul, pursuant to Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Central Bank.










—


Order the European Central Bank, pursuant to Articles 340 TFEU and 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to compensate the applicants in the amount of EUR 4 199 780,43, together with interest on late payments at the statutory rate until actual payment.










—


Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.






1.


Unfounded refusal, by omission and failure to take a decision, of the request made to the European Central Bank to take action on the basis of a complaint submitted by the applicants on 27 November 2015, related to certain unlawful and unfounded acts carried out by the Banco de Portugal.










2.


Lack of impartiality, transparency, integrity, competence, efficiency and responsibility, breach of the principle of equality before the law (infringement of Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights).










3.


Infringement of essential procedural requirements, infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application, misuse of powers.










4.


Favourable treatment and protection of IC Millenium/Bcp regarding the use of the financial system for money laundering and non-compliance with European Union obligations concerning the free movement of capital.










5.


Infringement of Article 11(3) of 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 and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’).
Case F-47/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2016 — Darchy v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Family allowances — Dependent child allowance — Children of the applicant’s spouse — Payment with retroactive effect)
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, dependant, family benefit, married person, servant (EU)








C_2016098EN.01006201.xml










14.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/62





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2016 — Darchy v Commission
(Case F-47/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Family allowances - Dependent child allowance - Children of the applicant’s spouse - Payment with retroactive effect))
(2016/C 098/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marie-Pierre Darchy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the decision not to uphold the application for the retroactive grant of the dependent child allowance in respect of the two children of the applicant’s spouse, who live at her home every second week, with effect from the date of their marriage and payment of compensation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Darchy to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 35.
Case C-40/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Irene Uhden v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines N.V.
Date: 2016-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic control, air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2016175EN.01000501.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 25 January 2016 — Irene Uhden v KLM Royal Dutch Airlines N.V.
(Case C-40/16)
(2016/C 175/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Irene Uhden

Defendant: KLM Royal Dutch Airlines N.V.

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) 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 (‘the air passenger rights regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance between the point of departure and the last destination, regardless of the distance actually flown in the individual case?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.