do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-238/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, debt, financial aid, interest, new technology








C_2016260EN.01004401.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/44





Action brought on 17 May 2016 – Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Scouring Environnement
(Case T-238/16)
(2016/C 260/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, agent, assisted by M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Scouring Environnement SARL (Tauriac, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of 60 000,00 euros in relation to the Grant Agreement No 287071 ‘BiMed – Bicarbonate media blasting for paint-varnish removal and dry surface treatment’, plus the amount of 3 600,00 euros as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,65 % for the period between 12 September 2014 and 3 May 2016; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following plea in law.
The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to submit the required reports, financial statements and deliverables of period 1, in accordance with Article 3 of the Grant Agreement, Article II.2(3) and Article II.4 Annex II to the Grant Agreement. Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II to the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of 60 000,00 euros that had already been paid to the coordinator in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Consequently, the Applicant issued debit note for the recovery of the pre-financing, which remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
The facts giving rise to Scouring Environnement SARL’s obligations, as coordinator, are widely undisputed in the present case, as no objection were raised by the defendant in relation to the circumstances of the termination and about the calculation of the amount to be re-paid to the applicant.
Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.
Case C-276/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Preqù Italia s.r.l. v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, appeal, customs duties, enforcement of ruling, tax law








C_2016305EN.01001301.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2016 — Preqù Italia s.r.l. v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
(Case C-276/16)
(2016/C 305/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Preqù Italia s.r.l.

Respondent: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Question referred

Is the Italian [tax] legislation [in question] contrary to the general principle of EU law that parties have a right to be heard in administrative procedures in that it does not provide, in favour of a taxpayer who has not been heard prior to the adoption of a tax measure by the customs authorities, for the suspension of that measure as the normal consequence of the lodging of an appeal?
Case T-252/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, information storage and retrieval, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01002301.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/23





Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Beyond Scale)
(Case T-252/16)
(2016/C 287/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 438

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2239/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


The subject mark, as a whole, would not be perceived as a promotional laudatory message having no indication of commercial origin.
Case T-253/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, information storage and retrieval, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01002302.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/23





Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Cleversafe v EUIPO (Storage Beyond Scale)
(Case T-253/16)
(2016/C 287/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cleversafe, Inc. (Chicago, Illinois, États-Unis d'Amérique) (represented by: A. Lingenfelser, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Storage Beyond Scale’ — Application for registration No 13 975 446

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 2240/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


The words composing the trade mark are not limited to a laudatory meaning as proposed by the Examiner.
Case T-242/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Stavytskyi v Council
Date: 2016-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ukraine, criminal proceedings, economic sanctions, international sanctions, judicial cooperation, natural person








C_2016270EN.01005001.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/50





Action brought on 17 May 2016 — Stavytskyi v Council
(Case T-242/16)
(2016/C 270/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/318 of 4 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine as well as Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/311 of 4 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, insofar as these acts retain the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to restrictive measures;










—


order the council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the listing suffers from illegality as it has been amended to allow for listing on the basis merely of being subject to criminal proceedings, without any requirement of judicial endorsement.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Council gave an insufficient and stereotypical statement of reasons, as it merely copied the text found in the listing legislation.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment as it did not have sufficiently solid factual basis for listing the applicant on the ground that he was subject to criminal proceeding by the Ukrainian authorities for the misappropriation of public funds or assets.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the measures taken by the Council do not, in relation to the applicant, constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis.