do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-179/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016222EN.01002601.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/26






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — L’Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
(Case T-179/16)
(2016/C 222/32)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Guinot SAS (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MASTER SMOKY’ — Application for registration No 11 567 104

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2905/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant for the purposes of the proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-225/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, foreign national, removal, residence permit








C_2016232EN.01000701.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Mossa Ouhrami
(Case C-225/16)
(2016/C 232/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

Mossa Ouhrami

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the period of five years mentioned therein is calculated:






a.


from the moment at which the entry ban (or, with retroactive effect, the equivalent declaration of undesirability) was issued, or










b.


with effect from the date on which the person concerned actually left the territory of — essentially — the Member States of the European Union, or










c.


from some other point in time?














2.


Must Article 11(2) of the Return Directive, having regard to the application of transitional law, be interpreted as meaning that decisions taken before that directive entered into force, the legal effect of which is that the addressee must remain outside the Netherlands for ten consecutive years, while the entry ban was determined having regard for all the relevant circumstances of the individual case and was open to challenge on legal grounds, no longer have any legal effect if the duration of that obligation, at the time by which that directive had to be implemented or at the time at which it was established that the person to whom that decision was addressed was present in the Netherlands, exceeded the period provided for in that provision?






(1)  Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98).
Case T-184/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, broadcasting, programmes industry, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2016232EN.01002301.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/23





Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NRJ Group v EUIPO – Sky International (SKY ENERGY)
(Case T-184/16)
(2016/C 232/31)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: NRJ Group (Boileau, France) (represented by: M. Antoine-Lalance, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky International AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SKY ENERGY’ – Application for registration No 9 727 322

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 February 2016 in Case R 3137/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Confirm the contested decision insofar as it allows the opposition in respect of the following goods and services:
Class 9: Recorded radio programmes; recorded programmes for broadcasting or other transmission on radio;
Class 38: Radio broadcasting; transmission and communication services, broadcasting and/or transmission of radio programmes; satellite; DTT, cable, DSL and broadband broadcasting and/or transmission of audio programming; transmission of audio, programming (by any means); provision of access to news, current affairs and sports information; telecommunication of information (including web pages); telecommunication and/or communication and/or broadcast and/or transmission of radio programmes;
Class 41: Entertainment services by means of radio, presentation and distribution of radio programmes, provision of news, current affairs and sports information, news, current affairs and educational information services; distribution of radio programmes, provision of radio prorammes;










—


annul the contested decision in all its other provisions;










—


allow the opposition and reject the contested EU mark application for all the goods and services;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: European Commission, Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Subjects: EU expenditure, amending budget, budgetary resources, executive agency, financial year, general budget (EU), publication of accounts, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2016143EN.01002101.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 143/21





Statement of revenue and expenditure of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises for the financial year 2016 — amending budget No 1
(2016/C 143/06)

REVENUE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Budget 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





2






COMMISSION SUBSIDY





2 0


COMMISSION SUBSIDY


39 134 135 


– 284 069 


38 850 066 




 



Title 2 — Total




39 134 135 




– 284 069 




38 850 066 






9






MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE





9 0


MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE


p.m.


 


p.m.




 



Title 9 — Total




p.m.



 



p.m.





 



GRAND TOTAL




39 134 135 




– 284 069 




38 850 066 






EXPENDITURE










Title
Chapter


Heading


Appropriations 2016


Amending budget No 1


New amount





1






STAFF EXPENDITURE





1 1


REMUNERATIONS, ALLOWANCES AND CHARGES


27 507 015 


 


27 507 015 




1 2


PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL EXPENDITURE


1 273 970 


 


1 273 970 




 



Title 1 — Total




28 780 985 



 



28 780 985 






2






INFRASTRUCTURE AND OPERATING EXPENDITURE





2 1


BUILDING EXPENDITURE


2 200 000 


 


2 200 000 




2 2


ICT EXPENDITURE


1 997 000 


 


1 997 000 




2 3


MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ASSOCIATED COSTS


812 000 


 


812 000 




 



Title 2 — Total




5 009 000 



 



5 009 000 






3






PROGRAMME SUPPORT EXPENDITURE





3 1


PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURE


5 344 150 


– 284 069 


5 060 081 




 



Title 3 — Total




5 344 150 




– 284 069 




5 060 081 





 



GRAND TOTAL




39 134 135 




– 284 069 




38 850 066
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016141EN.01000201.xml










22.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

21 April 2016
(2016/C 141/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1355 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,50 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4411 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,78693 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,1845 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0989 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,2015 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,024 




HUF


Hungarian forint


310,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3085 




RON


Romanian leu


4,4815 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,1962 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4496 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4346 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8088 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6262 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5252 




KRW


South Korean won


1 286,36 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0999 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3525 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4870 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 903,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4105 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,822 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,8545 




THB


Thai baht


39,743 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,0043 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,6232 




INR


Indian rupee


75,2595 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-193/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Türkiye, agreement (EU), aid to refugees, human rights, infringement of EU law, migratory movement, refugee, removal, right of asylum








C_2016232EN.01002601.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/26





Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NG v European Council
(Case T-193/16)
(2016/C 232/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NG (Levbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;










—


order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.
Case T-192/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Türkiye, agreement (EU), aid to refugees, freedom of self-determination, human rights, infringement of EU law, migration, refugee, removal, right of asylum








C_2016232EN.01002501.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/25





Action brought on 22 April 2016 – NF v European Council
(Case T-192/16)
(2016/C 232/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: NF (Lesbos Island, Greece) (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Council

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’;










—


order that the applicant’s legal costs are paid.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the agreement between the European Council and Turkey dated 18th March 2016 entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18th March 2016’, is incompatible with EU fundamental rights, particularly Articles 1, 18 and 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that Turkey is not a safe third country in the sense of Article 36 of Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ L 326, 13.12.2005, p. 13-34).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof (OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12-23) should have been implemented.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the challenging agreement is in reality a binding Treaty or ‘act’ having legal effects for the Applicant and that the failure to comply with Article 218 TFUE and/or Article 78.3 TFUE, either together or separately, render the challenged agreement invalid.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the prohibition of collective expulsion in the sense of Article 19.1 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union is breached.
Case T-177/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Loire Region, pip fruit, plant breeding, plant variety right, rights of the defence








C_2016211EN.01006401.xml










13.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/64






Action brought on 22 April 2016 — Mema v CPVO (Braeburn 78 (11078))
(Case T-177/16)
(2016/C 211/79)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Mema GmbH l.G. (Terlan, Italy) (represented by: B. Breitinger and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Details of the proceedings before the CPVO


Community plant variety right at issue: Braeburn 78 (11078) — Plant variety Application No 2009/0954

Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 in Case A001/2015

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal for further decision with the direction to annul the contested decision and order the CPVO to carry out a complementary examination pursuant to Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 12 February 2016 (Case A 001/2015);










—


in the alternative, in the event that an order is not granted in the form of the first and second points, stay these proceedings pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in force from 1 July 2015 (‘the Rules of Procedure’) until a final decision has been made in the proceedings in accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation No 2100/94 on the cancellation of plant variety rights for reference variety ‘Royal Braeburn’ (Application No 1998/1082; Plant variety No 11960). That decision is preliminary since, depending on the result, the reference variety will disappear or it will follow that Angers-Beaucouzé was and is unsuitable as a test location (see point 12) and therefore whether a complementary examination was necessary or not;










—


order the CPVO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Misuse of discretion — Infringement of Article 57(3) of Regulation No 2100/94;










—


Infringement of a provision to be applied in implementing Regulation No 2100/94;










—


Infringement of Point 57 of the CPVO apple test protocol;










—


Infringement of Part IV of the CPVO apple test protocol;










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Right to a hearing;










—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 — Incomplete statement of reasons.
Case T-197/16: Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016243EN.01003801.xml










4.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/38





Action brought on 22 April 2016 – Andrea Incontri v EUIPO – HigicoL (ANDREA INCONTRI)
(Case T-197/16)
(2016/C 243/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Andrea Incontri Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HigicoL, SA (Baguim do monte, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANDREA INCONTRI’ – Application for registration No 10 985 323

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 February 2016 in Case R 146/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


totally alter the contested decision;










—


as a consequence, accept EUTM Application No 10 985 323 ANDREA INCONTRI in its entirety;










—


order the other parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings, as well as those of the EUIPO opposition and appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-227/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV
Date: 2016-04-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, animal welfare, calf, farmers' income, fattening, protection of animal life, public health, single payment scheme, standard of living








C_2016279EN.01001001.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem (Netherlands) lodged on 22 April 2016 — Jan Theodorus Arts v Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV
(Case C-227/16)
(2016/C 279/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, sitting in Arnhem

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Jan Theodorus Arts

Respondent: Veevoederbedrijf Alpuro BV

Questions referred







1.


Is a set of clauses in an agreement between a calf fattener and an integration undertaking, …, from which it follows that the single payment allocated to the calf fattener pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers is payable to the integration undertaking by means of a deduction from the price for the fattened calves, valid, given the objectives of that regulation, in particular the objective of ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers by means of direct income support and the promotion of public health, animal health, the environment and animal welfare?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: does the national court, given the conflict which exists with the objectives of Regulation No 73/2009, have the power to modify the agreement on the basis of the clausula rebus sic stantibus doctrine in such a way that the disadvantage resulting from the nullity of that set of clauses is fully or partially eliminated for the integration undertaking, in particular by lowering the price for fattened calves?






(1)  Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).