do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-72/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016191EN.01005402.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/54





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission
(Case F-72/15) (1)

(2016/C 191/80)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 55.
Case C-213/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Tanja Reiter
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge, criminal proceedings, residence, rights of the defence, ruling








C_2016260EN.01002001.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Tanja Reiter
(Case C-213/16)
(2016/C 260/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Tanja Reiter
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not, as a result, have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can demonstrably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?










2.


Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?






(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Case T-175/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household electrical appliance








C_2016211EN.01006301.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/63






Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
(Case T-175/16)
(2016/C 211/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0008 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1725/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-214/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2016 — C. King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, labour dispute, labour law, paid leave








C_2016222EN.01000602.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/6






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 April 2016 — C. King v The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar
(Case C-214/16)
(2016/C 222/08)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

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

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: C. King

Defendants: The Sash Window Workshop Ltd, Richard Dollar

Questions referred







(1)


If there is a dispute between a worker and employer as to whether the worker is entitled to annual leave with pay pursuant to article 7 of Directive 2003/88 (1), is it compatible with EU law, and in particular the principle of effective remedy, if the worker has to take leave first before being able to establish whether he is entitled to be paid?










(2)


If the worker does not take all or some of the annual leave to which he is entitled in the leave year when any right should be exercised, in circumstances where he would have done so but for the fact that the employer refuses to pay him for any period of leave he takes, can the worker claim that he is prevented from exercising his right to paid leave such that the right carries over until he has the opportunity to exercise it?










(3)


If the right carries over, does it do so indefinitely or is there a limited period for exercising the carried-over right by analogy with the limitations imposed where the worker is unable to exercise the right to leave in the relevant leave year because of sickness?










(4)


If there is no statutory or contractual provision specifying a carry-over period, is the court obliged to impose a limit to the carry-over period in order to ensure that the application of the Regulations does not distort the purpose behind article 7?










(5)


If so, is a period of 18 months following the end of the holiday year in which the leave accrued compatible with the article 7 right?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. OJ L 299, p. 9
Case F-29/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, civil servant, transfer of pension rights








C_2016191EN.01005302.xml










30.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/53





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission
(Case F-29/12) (1)

(2016/C 191/78)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.
Case T-295/15: Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith — Earlier EU word mark SMITH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2016200EN.01002101.xml










6.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/21





Order of the General Court of 18 April 2016 — Zhang v EUIPO — K & L Ruppert Stiftung (Anna Smith)
(Case T-295/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Anna Smith - Earlier EU word mark SMITH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 200/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Yongyu Zhang (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Steinert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (Weilheim, Germany) (represented by: A. Kockläuner and O. Nilgen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2015 (Case R 1559/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG et M. Yongyu Zhang.

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Yongyu Zhang to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Case T-173/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hand tool, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01002202.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/22





Action brought on 18 April 2016 – Wöhlke v EUIPO – Danielle Roches (ALIQUA)
(Case T-173/16)
(2016/C 232/30)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Christoph Wöhlke (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: V. Rust-Sorge, lawyer).

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Danielle Roches SARL (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ALIQUA’ – Application for registration No 12 079 381

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 January 2016 in Case R 905/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


revoke the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 65(2) in connection with Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/608 of 18 April 2016 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Palestine question, aid to refugees, political asylum, refugee, residence permit








L_2016104EN.01001801.xml










20.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 104/18








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2016/608
of 18 April 2016
         
concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 and Article 31(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 5 March 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/363 (1) concerning the temporary reception by Member States of certain Palestinians which provided for an extension of the validity of their national permits for entry into, and stay in, the territory of the Member States referred to in Common Position 2002/400/CFSP (2) for a further period of 24 months.












(2)


On the basis of an evaluation of the application of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP, the Council considers it appropriate that the validity of those permits be extended for a further period of 24 months,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Member States referred to in Article 2 of Common Position 2002/400/CFSP shall extend the validity of national permits for entry and stay granted pursuant to Article 3 of the Common Position for a further period of 24 months, starting from 31 January 2016.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 18 April 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/363 of 5 March 2015 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (OJ L 62, 6.3.2015, p. 24).

(2)  Council Common Position 2002/400/CFSP of 21 May 2002 concerning the temporary reception by Member States of the European Union of certain Palestinians (OJ L 138, 28.5.2002, p. 33).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/656 of 18 April 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Patata del Fucino (PGI))
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Abruzzi, Italy, designation of origin, labelling, potato, product designation








L_2016114EN.01000501.xml










28.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 114/5








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/656
of 18 April 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Patata del Fucino (PGI))


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, Italy's application to register the name ‘Patata del Fucino’ 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 ‘Patata del Fucino’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Patata del Fucino’ (PGI) 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, 18 April 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 438, 30.12.2015, p. 8.

(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).
Case T-174/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household electrical appliance








C_2016211EN.01006201.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/62






Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
(Case T-174/16)
(2016/C 211/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0004 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1652/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-161/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, heating, machine-tool industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002301.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/23






Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — CMS (CMS Italy)
(Case T-161/16)
(2016/C 222/29)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) (Alonte, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of 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 ‘CMS ITALY’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 150 538

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 in Case R 229/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision on the grounds that Article 8(5) EUTMR was not applied;










—


order EUIPO and Costruzione Macchine Speciali Srl (CMS) to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(5), 76(1) and 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 19(2) of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of the principles of legal security and sound administration.
Case T-168/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Grizzly Tools v Commission
Date: 2016-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EC conformity marking, European standard, Spain, dual-use good, household electrical appliance, launching of a product, market approval, pressure equipment, product safety, safety standard








C_2016270EN.01004502.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/45





Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Grizzly Tools v Commission
(Case T-168/16)
(2016/C 270/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Grizzly Tools GmbH & Co. KG (Großostheim, Germany) (represented by: H. Fischer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/175 of 8 February 2016 on a measure taken by Spain pursuant to Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, to prohibit the placing on the market of a type of pressure washer (OJ 2016, L 33, p. 12);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Infringement of essential requirements of form
The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in so far as its recitals are contradictory and unclear.
Moreover, the contested decision infringes the principle that the Commission is to state the facts of the case correctly. In the fourth recital, the Commission incorrectly alleges that the applicant made reference in the EC Declaration of Conformity to the standard EN-60335-2-67-2009, which is incorrect.










2.


Infringement of Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC (1)





The applicant claims that the Commission incorrectly took the view that the measure taken by Spain to prohibit the placing on the market was justified.
In particular, the Spanish authorities and the Commission characterised the pressure washer as of dual use, capable of being used not only as a portable appliance, but also as a hand-held appliance. They therefore considered a higher level of safety to be necessary despite the pressure washer not being intended for use as a hand-held appliance and there being no reasonably foreseeable misuse within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Directive 2006/42/EC in its use as a hand-held pressure washer.


(1)  Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC (OJ 2006 L 157, p. 24).