do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-376/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Yassin v Council
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2016165EN.01002002.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/20





Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Yassin v Council
(Case T-376/14) (1)

(2016/C 165/24)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case T-378/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Salama v Council
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2016165EN.01002101.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/21





Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Salama v Council
(Case T-378/14) (1)

(2016/C 165/26)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case C-161/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Airhelp Limited v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, child, consumer protection, indemnification, ticket








C_2016175EN.01001301.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Airhelp Limited v Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S
(Case C-161/16)
(2016/C 175/15)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Attunda tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendants: Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia A/S

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 2(g) and 3(2)(a) of the regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that a passenger must have a reserved seat (that is to say, the right to his own seat in the aeroplane) or is it sufficient for the passenger to have received confirmation of his booking on the flight (that is to say, the right to be transported in the aeroplane) for compensation to be payable?










2.


Must a ticket at a reduced fare for a child who does not have his own seat for the flight, but travels in the company of another passenger, be regarded as available directly or indirectly to the public under Article 3(3) of the regulation?






(1)  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 (OJ L 46, 2004, p. 1).
Case T-375/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Al Naggar v Council
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2016165EN.01002001.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/20





Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Al Naggar v Council
(Case T-375/14) (1)

(2016/C 165/23)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case T-117/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016191EN.01003501.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/35





Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Isdin v EUIPO — Spirig Pharma (ERYFOTONA ACTINICA)
(Case T-117/16)
(2016/C 191/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spirig Pharma AG (Egerkingen, Suisse)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ERYFOTONA ACTINICA’ — Application for registration No 11 853 116

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2016 in Case R 1387/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, if the case might be, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the essential costs incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal’s decision not to suspend proceedings constitutes a manifest error of assessment, a misuse of powers and an infringement of the Rule 20(7) in connection with the Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Rule 52(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, Articles 75, 76(1) and 99(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and breach of the principles of equality before the law, proportionality, legal certainty and sound administration;










—


Subsidiary, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-113/16: Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a panther)
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, protective equipment, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2016175EN.01002201.xml










17.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/22





Action brought on 21 March 2016 — Arctic Cat v EUIPO — Slazengers (Representation of a panther)
(Case T-113/16)
(2016/C 175/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Arctic Cat, Inc. (Thief River Falls, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Slazengers Ltd (Burnham, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark (Representation of a panther) — International registration designating the European Union No 941 684

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 2953/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as the appeal was dismissed and the partial refusal of protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’) was confirmed;










—


allow protection of IR No 941 684 in respect of the European Union also for the goods claimed in class 25 (‘Power sport vehicle-specific clothing, including protective outwear, balaclavas and face masks’);










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


order Slazengers Ltd to pay the costs of the proceedings before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-377/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Ezz v Council
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Egypt, economic sanctions, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, ownership, protection of privacy, rights of the defence








C_2016165EN.01002003.xml










10.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 165/20





Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Ezz v Council
(Case T-377/14) (1)

(2016/C 165/25)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Case C-163/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016211EN.01003002.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag (Nederland) lodged on 21 March 2016 — Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS v Van Haren Schoenen BV
(Case C-163/16)
(2016/C 211/39)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Christian Louboutin, Christian Louboutin SAS

Defendant: Van Haren Schoenen BV

Question referred

Is the notion of ‘shape’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) (‘Form’, ‘vorm’ and ‘forme’ in the German, Dutch and French language versions of the Trade Marks Directive respectively) limited to the three-dimensional properties of the goods, such as their contours, measurements and volume (expressed three-dimensionally), or does it include other (non three-dimensional) properties of the goods, such as their colour?


(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Case C-164/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, contract, credit sale, ownership, supply








C_2016191EN.01001601.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd
(Case C-164/16)
(2016/C 191/20)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Financial Services UK Ltd

Questions referred







1.


What is the meaning of the words ‘a contract…which provides that in the normal course of events ownership is to pass at the latest upon payment of the final instalment’ in Article 14.2(b) (1)?










2.


In particular, in the context of the present case, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require a tax authority to do no more than to identify the existence of an option to purchase which can be exercised no later than upon payment of the final instalment?










3.


Alternatively, does the phrase ‘in the normal course of events’ require the national authority to go further and to determine the economic purpose of the contract?










4.


If the answer to (3) is yes:






a.


Should the interpretation of Article 14.2 be influenced by an analysis of whether the customer is likely to exercise such an option?










b.


Is the size of the price payable on exercise of the option to purchase relevant for the purposes of determining the economic purpose of the contract?










(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

OJ L 347, p. 1
Case C-165/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date: 2016-03-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, dual nationality, foreign national, free movement of persons, freedom of movement, mixed marriage, residence permit








C_2016191EN.01001701.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 21 March 2016 — Toufik Lounes v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Case C-165/16)
(2016/C 191/21)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Toufik Lounes

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Where a Spanish national and Union citizen:






i.


moves to the United Kingdom, in the exercise of her right to free movement under Directive 2004/38/EC (1); and










ii.


resides in the United Kingdom in the exercise of her right under Article 7 or Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC; and










iii.


subsequently acquires British citizenship, which she holds in addition to her Spanish nationality, as a dual national; and










iv.


several years after acquiring British citizenship, marries a third country national with whom she resides in the United Kingdom;




are she and her spouse both beneficiaries of Directive 2004/38/EC, within the meaning of Article 3(1), whilst she is residing in the United Kingdom, and holding both Spanish nationality and British citizenship?


(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC

OJ L 158, p. 77