do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-533/15: Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, contract of carriage, damages, law of obligations, mutual recognition principle, traveller








C_2016279EN.01002404.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/24





Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj
(Case C-533/15) (1)

(2016/C 279/35)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.
Case T-199/16: Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, designation of origin, labelling, milk, product designation, restriction on competition








C_2016232EN.01002602.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/26





Action brought on 2 March 2016 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
(Case T-199/16)
(2016/C 232/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)).





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


The applicants claim that the defendant did not have regard to their opposition in adopting the implementing regulation at issue, despite that opposition being communicated in time to the competent national authority under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1), which did not then forward the opposition in time to the Commission.










2.


Furthermore, the applicants claim that the defendant adopted an implementing regulation before the General Court had given final judgment in the action in Case T-178/15 in Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission, brought in relation to the defendant’s erroneous decision to reject the opposition as not made in time.










3.


Lastly, the adoption of the implementing regulation significantly disadvantages the applicants. That regulation infringes EU law that aims to ensure free and fair competition.






(1)  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 (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).
Case T-203/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, infringement of EU law








C_2016232EN.01002901.xml










27.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/29





Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission
(Case T-203/16)
(2016/C 232/37)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark [Danish Regulating Power Association (BRD)] (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power.










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU by having initiated the formal State aid procedure only 29 months after the applicant’s complaint and by having failed to deliver a decision in the case even some 31 months after initiating that procedure.
The applicant further submits that the Commission has received all information that could possibly be necessary to complete the State aid procedure and that a period of 31 months must be deemed to be abundantly sufficient in which to cover the factual and relevant aspects of the case, not least since, prior to the aforementioned 29 months spent on the preliminary examination procedure, the Commission had a total of five years to investigate the case.
Case C-252/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, audiovisual industry, copyright, freedom to provide services, right of establishment








C_2016279EN.01001501.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA) v Josef Ebert
(Case C-252/16)
(2016/C 279/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, Bezirksdirektion Nürnberg (GEMA)

Defendant: Josef Ebert
By decision of 31 May 2016, the Court removed the case from the Court’s Register
Case T-206/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01003501.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/35





Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Bodegas Verdúguez v EUIPO (TRES TOROS 3)
(Case T-206/16)
(2016/C 251/41)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Bodegas Verdúguez, SL (Villanueva de Alcardete, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRES TOROS 3’ — Application for registration No 12 796 926

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2016 in Case R 407/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


admit its action against the contested decision, annul that decision and hold that:






1)


the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) does not apply to the EU trade mark applied for;










2)


in the alternative, and solely if the Court should consider that the prohibition in Article 7(1)(j) is applicable to the mark applied for, hold that that prohibition applies only with respect to ‘wine’ goods, thus maintaining the rejection solely in that regard and restoring the validity of the mark for the remainder of the goods claimed in Class 33.














—


order EUIPO to pay the costs and to reimburse the appeal fees paid by the applicant to EUIPO, as the case may be.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article (7)(1)(j) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-23/16: Action brought on 2 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, reassignment, servant (EU)








C_2016251EN.01005101.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/51





Action brought on 2 May 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-23/16)
(2016/C 251/59)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application seeking that the applicant be awarded compensation in respect of the material harm he claims to have incurred due to the alleged delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation to make good the loss he has suffered, in its entirety, due to the delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case C-248/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: joint venture, merger, merger control








C_2016260EN.01002701.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG v Bundeskartellanwalt
(Case C-248/16)
(2016/C 260/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Austria Asphalt GmbH & Co OG

Defendant: Bundeskartellanwalt

Question referred

Must Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (‘the Merger Regulation’) be interpreted to mean that a move from sole control to joint control of an existing undertaking, in circumstances where the undertaking previously having sole control becomes an undertaking exercising joint control, constitutes a concentration only where the controlled undertaking has on a lasting basis all the functions of an autonomous entity?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (the EC Merger Regulation) (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1).
Case F-110/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Nill v Commission
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016222EN.01005001.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/50






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Nill v Commission
(Case F-110/14) (1)

(2016/C 222/78)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 26, 26/1/2015, p. 46.
Case F-40/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016222EN.01004803.xml










20.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/48






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission
(Case F-40/14) (1)

(2016/C 222/72)
Language of the case: French
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 292, 1/9/2014, p. 60.
Case C-249/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö
Date: 2016-05-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, debt, establishment, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, loan, mutual recognition principle








C_2016305EN.01001201.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 May 2016 — Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö
(Case C-249/16)
(2016/C 305/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Saale Kareda

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Stefan Benkö

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) be interpreted as meaning that, where a debtor under a (joint) credit agreement with a bank has, on his own, made the repayments due under that credit agreement, a reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) brought by that debtor against the other debtor under that credit agreement constitutes a derived (secondary) contractual claim arising from that credit agreement?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Is the place of performance of a debtor’s reimbursement claim (compensation/recourse claim) against the other debtor arising out of the underlying credit agreement to be determined






a.


in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 (‘provision of services’) or










b.


in accordance with Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(a), of Regulation No 1215/2012 on the basis of the lex causae?














3.


If Question 2.a is answered in the affirmative:
Is the service characterising the credit agreement the granting of the loans by the bank, and is, therefore, the place of performance of that service determined in accordance with the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 by the registered office of the bank, if the loans were provided exclusively at that place?










4.


If Question 2.b is answered in the affirmative:
For the purpose of determining the place of performance for the non-performed contractual obligation in accordance with Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 1215/2012, is the decisive date






a.


the date on which the two debtors took out the loans (March 2007) or










b.


the dates on which the loan debtor entitled to recourse made to the bank the payments from which he derives the recourse claim (June 2012 to June 2014)?










(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.