do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-49/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Azanta v OHIM — Novartis (NIMORAL)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016106EN.01004501.xml










21.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 106/45





Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Azanta v OHIM — Novartis (NIMORAL)
(Case T-49/16)
(2016/C 106/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before OHIM


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘NIMORAL’ — Application for registration No 12 204 079

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2015 in Case R 634/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


allow the registration of the contested trademark.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-55/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 1 February 2016 — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, tax law, tax rebate








C_2016145EN.01001901.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 1 February 2016 — Evo Bus GmbH v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș
(Case C-55/16)
(2016/C 145/24)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Evo Bus GmbH

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Argeș

Question referred

Are the Eighth Directive (79/1072/EEC) (1) and the principle of fiscal neutrality to be interpreted as precluding/having precluded the legislation of a Member State which regulates/regulated, in the light of the principle that there should be certainty in tax matters, the conditions for eligibility for reimbursement of value added tax, such as, in the present case, the condition requiring proof of payment of the tax by suppliers?


(1)  Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization 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 (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11).
Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-17/15 — Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State (Jurisdiction — Article 8 EEA — Import of raw meat — Directive 89/662/EEC — Harmonisation of the regulatory regime for veterinary checks)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, frozen product, health certificate, import, import licence, meat, meat product, veterinary inspection








C_2017018EN.01002501.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/25





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 February 2016
in Case E-17/15
Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State
(Jurisdiction — Article 8 EEA — Import of raw meat — Directive 89/662/EEC — Harmonisation of the regulatory regime for veterinary checks)
(2017/C 18/09)
In Case E-17/15, Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v The Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the applicability of the provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area to the import to Iceland of raw meat products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The field of application of the EEA Agreement as defined in Article 8 EEA does not entail that an EEA State has discretion to set rules on the importation of raw meat products, since that discretion may be limited by provisions incorporated into an Annex to the EEA Agreement.










2.


It is not compatible with the provisions of Directive 89/662/EEC for an EEA State to enact rules demanding that an importer of raw meat products applies for a special permit before the products are imported, and requiring the submission of a certificate confirming that the meat has been stored frozen for a certain period prior to customs clearance.
Appointment of the Registrar
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice, Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, appointment of members








C_2016038EN.01000201.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/2





Appointment of the Registrar
(2016/C 038/02)
At its general meeting on 27 October 2015, the Court decided to reappoint Mr Alfredo Calot Escobar as Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 18 of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from 7 October 2016 to 6 October 2022.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/132 of 1 February 2016 fixing the closing date for the submission of applications for private storage aid for pigmeat under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, aid to agriculture, financial aid, market stabilisation, pigmeat, private stock, storage premium








L_2016025EN.01005601.xml










2.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 25/56








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/132
of 1 February 2016
         
fixing the closing date for the submission of applications for private storage aid for pigmeat under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular point (b) of the first subparagraph and the second subparagraph of Article 18(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Private storage aid granted pursuant to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334 (2) has had a favourable effect on the pigmeat market. A further stabilisation of prices is expected.












(2)


The granting of private storage aid for pigmeat should therefore be ended and a closing date for the submission of applications should be set.












(3)


For the sake of legal certainty, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334 should be repealed.












(4)


In order to avoid speculation, this Regulation should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.













(5)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The closing date for the submission of applications for private storage aid for pigmeat under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334 shall be 3 February 2016.


Article 2
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334 is repealed with effect from 3 February 2016.
However, it shall continue to apply in respect of contracts concluded under that Regulation.


Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 February 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2334 of 14 December 2015 opening private storage for pigmeat and fixing in advance the amount of aid (OJ L 329, 15.12.2015, p. 10).
Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-20/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, aerosol, consumer information, inflammable product, infringement procedure (EU), labelling, national implementing measure, safety standard








C_2017018EN.01002601.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/26





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 February 2016
in Case E-20/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)
(2017/C 18/10)
In Case E-20/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/215 of 1 February 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aydın İnciri (PDO))
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Türkiye, designation of origin, dried product, labelling, pip fruit, product designation








L_2016040EN.01000301.xml










17.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 40/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/215
of 1 February 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Aydın İnciri (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey's application to register the name ‘Aydın İnciri’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Aydın İnciri’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Aydın İnciri’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 February 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 299, 11.9.2015, p. 29.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-23/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/53/EU)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, infringement procedure (EU), medicine, national implementing measure, organ transplantation, product quality, product safety, public health, quality standard, safety standard








C_2017018EN.01002901.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/29





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 February 2016
in Case E-23/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2010/53/EU)
(2017/C 18/13)
In Case E-23/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by Joint Committee Decision No 164/2013 of 8 October 2013, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement Articles 15 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 15zn of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/53/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation, as corrected), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Orders Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-21/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA, Iceland, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, engine, infringement procedure (EU), market approval, national implementing measure, reduction of gas emissions, technical regulations








C_2017018EN.01002701.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/27





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 February 2016
in Case E-21/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/88/EU amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme)
(2017/C 18/11)
In Case E-21/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 1a of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/88/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 amending Directive 97/68/EC as regards the provisions for engines placed on the market under the flexibility scheme) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-22/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU — Directive 2012/26/EU)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, drug surveillance, illicit trade, industrial counterfeiting, infringement of EU law, market approval, medicinal product, national implementing measure








C_2017018EN.01002801.xml










19.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/28





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 1 February 2016
in Case E-22/15
EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
(Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU — Directive 2012/26/EU)
(2017/C 18/12)
In Case E-22/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at point 15q, ninth and tenth indent, of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-45/16: Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016111EN.01003301.xml










29.3.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/33





Action brought on 1 February 2016 — Alfonso Egüed v EUIPO — Jackson Family Farms (BYRON)
(Case T-45/16)
(2016/C 111/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nelson Alfonso Egüed (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jackson Family Farms LLC (Santa Rosa, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘BYRON’ — Application for registration No 10 581 619

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings/Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2015 in Case R 822/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested decision;










—


grant the application for registration of the EU trademark No 10581619 ‘BYRON’ for all goods covered in classes 18, 25 and 33 (being the latter the contested class in the present proceedings);










—


order the intervener to bear the costs of the procedure.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 with respect to the common law tort of passing off.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2016-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union








C_2016038EN.01000101.xml










1.2.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/1





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

(2016/C 038/01)

Last publication


OJ C 27, 25.1.2016


Past publications


OJ C 16, 18.1.2016


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

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu