do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-90/16: Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate (Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)
Date: 2016-02-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, measuring equipment








C_2016156EN.01005102.xml










2.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/51






Action brought on 22 February 2016 — Murphy v EUIPO — Nike Innovate
(Measuring instruments, apparatus and devices)
(Case T-90/16)
(2016/C 156/69)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Thomas Murphy (Blackrock, Ireland) (represented by: N. Travers, SC, J. Gormley, Barrister, M. O’Connor, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Design at issue: Community design ‘measuring instruments, apparatus and devices’ — Community design No 2 159 640-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2015 in Case R 736/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to give the Applicant a fair and adequate hearing;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to identify the actual degree of design freedom and the degree of design constraint, and, in so doing, failed properly to reason, or reason adequately, the contested decision;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to make a proper, close, factually correct and realistic assessment of the overall impression of the competing designs and then apply that assessment to those designs when considering the question of individual character.
Case C-106/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.
Date: 2016-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: liquidation, nationality of legal persons, private limited company, registration of a company, right of establishment, transfer of businesses








C_2016211EN.01002301.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.
(Case C-106/16)
(2016/C 211/29)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Party to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Polbud — Wykonawstwo sp. z o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union preclude the application by a Member State, in which a commercial company (public limited company) was initially incorporated, of provisions of national law which make removal from the commercial register conditional on the company being wound up after liquidation has been carried out, if the company has been reincorporated in another Member State pursuant to a shareholders’ decision to continue the legal personality acquired in the State of initial incorporation?










2.


If the answer to that question is in the negative: Can Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the requirement under national law that proceedings for the liquidation of the company be carried out — including the conclusion of current business, recovery of debts, fulfilment of obligations and sale of company assets, satisfaction or securing of creditors, submission of a financial statement on the conduct of those acts, and indication of the person to whom the books and documents are to be entrusted — which precede the winding-up thereof, which occurs on removal from the commercial register, is a measure which is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to a public interest deserving of protection in the form of safeguarding of creditors, minority shareholders, and employees of the migrant company?










3.


Must Articles 49 and 54 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that restrictions on the freedom of establishment include a situation in which — for the purpose of conversion to a company of another Member State — a company transfers its registered office to that other Member State without changing its place of principal establishment, which remains in the State of initial incorporation?
Case C-118/15: Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea
Date: 2016-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, employer, national law, provision of services, public sector, staff, supplier








C_2016200EN.01001501.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/15





Order of the President of the Court of 22 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Confederación Sindical ELA, Juan Manuel Martínez Sánchez v Aquarbe S.A.U., Consorcio de Aguas de Busturialdea
(Case C-118/15) (1)

(2016/C 200/21)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.
Case C-107/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato
Date: 2016-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Food Safety Authority, animal health, consumer protection, food safety, foodstuffs legislation, genetically modified organism, health legislation








C_2016165EN.01001001.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato
(Case C-107/16)
(2016/C 165/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court:

Tribunale di Pordenone

Criminal proceedings against:

Giorgio Fidenato

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling







1.


When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures even if the Commission does not consider there to be a serious and evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment?










2.


If the Commission has notified the Member State that the conditions for the adoption of emergency measures do not exist, may the Member State take measures pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002?










3.


May the Member State, on the basis of the precautionary principle, adopt emergency measures pursuant to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) even where the conditions of serious and evident risk are not present, and may it maintain such measures in force when the Commission, after examining the opinion of EFSA, notifies it that the conditions necessary for the adoption of emergency measures are not met?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p 1).