do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-259/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, marketing, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade intermediary, trade-mark law








C_2016251EN.01004501.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/45





Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Trost Auto Service Technik v EUIPO (AUTOSERVICE.COM)

(Case T-259/16)
(2016/C 251/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Trost Auto Service Technik SE (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: P. Kohl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘AUTOSERVICE.COM’ — Application for registration No 13 593 678

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 in Case R 1770/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-285/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016475EN.01001001.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/10





Appeal brought on 23 May 2016 by Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 March 2016 in Case T-33/15, Grupo Bimbo v EUIPO (BIMBO)
(Case C-285/16 P)
(2016/C 475/13)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 13 October 2016, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V. to bear its own costs.
Case C-283/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dependant, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, maintenance obligation, mutual recognition principle








C_2016279EN.01002001.xml










1.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) made on 23 May 2016 — M. S. v P. S.
(Case C-283/16)
(2016/C 279/27)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M. S.

Defendant: P. S.

Questions referred







i.


In circumstances where a maintenance creditor wishes to enforce in one Member State an order which has been obtained in another Member State, does Chapter IV of EU Regulation 4/2009 (1) (the Maintenance Regulation) confer upon her a right to make an application for enforcement directly to the competent authority of the requested state?










ii.


If the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, should Chapter IV of the Maintenance Regulations be interpreted so as to mean that each member state is obliged to provide a procedure or mechanism such as will enable the right to be recognised?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations

OJ L 7, p. 1
Case C-287/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, civil liability, contract, drivers, insurance contract, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance








C_2016326EN.01000901.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA v Caisse Suisse de Compensation and Others
(Case C-287/16)
(2016/C 326/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Fidelidade-Companhia de Seguros SA

Respondents: Caisse Suisse de Compensation, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, Sandra Cristina Chrystello Pinto Moreira Pereira, Sandra Manuela Teixeira Gomes Seemann, Catarina Ferreira Seemann, José Batista Pereira

Question referred

Do Article 3(1) of Directive 72/166/EEC, (1) Article 2(1) of Directive 84/5/EEC, (2) and Article 1 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (3) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, preclude national legislation which provides that an insurance contract shall be null and void in the event of false statements concerning the owner of the motor vehicle and the identity of its usual driver, where the contract was concluded by a person who has no economic interest in the use of the vehicle and where there is an underlying fraudulent intent on the part of the interested parties (policy holder, owner of the vehicle and the usual driver) to obtain cover for risks in respect of the use of motor vehicles by means of: (i) concluding a contract that the insurer would not have entered if it had known the identity of the policyholder and (ii) paying a premium lower than would be payable having regard to the age of the usual driver?


(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1).

(2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).
Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/816 of 23 May 2016 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Libya, economic sanctions, international sanctions, vessel








L_2016133EN.01001101.xml










24.5.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 133/11








            COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION (CFSP) 2016/816
of 23 May 2016
         
implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP (1), and in particular Article 12(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 31 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.












(2)


On 12 May 2016, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (2011) deleted the entry for one vessel from the list of vessels subject to restrictive measures.












(3)


Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Decision.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 23 May 2016.


For the Council


The President

F. MOGHERINI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 206, 1.8.2015, p. 34.




ANNEX
The entry for the following vessel is deleted from the list of vessels subject to restrictive measures set out in part B (Entities) of Annex V to Decision (CFSP) 2015/1333.

1.   

Name: DISTYA AMEYA
Case C-286/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2016 — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, VAT, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, carriage of passengers, international transport, national law, principle of legal certainty, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2016296EN.01002001.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2016 — SC Exmitiani SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj
(Case C-286/16)
(2016/C 296/26)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Exmitiani SRL

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Cluj

Questions referred







1.


In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the disputed administrative measure was adopted before the accession [of the Republic of Romania to the European Union] and the appeal against that measure was decided on by provision of the tax authorities after the accession, does the principle of cooperation in good faith imply that national legislation is to be interpreted in the light of the EU directives applicable to VAT? (1)











2.


Having regard to the circumstances of the main proceedings, is the principle of legal certainty to be interpreted as precluding the practice of tax authorities whereby, on the basis of the same factual circumstances, those authorities reach different conclusions from those reached by the prosecution authorities as regards the exemption from VAT of the provision of services directly connected with international passenger transport?










3.


Is the principle of cooperation in good faith to be interpreted as precluding domestic legislation which provides that, where pleas based on provisions of EU law are not raised in an appeal against an administrative measure, such pleas may not be raised subsequently before the courts?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-284/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2016270EN.01006101.xml










25.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/61





Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)
(Case T-284/16)
(2016/C 270/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Diego Gulli (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: M. Andreolini and F. Andreolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laverana GmbH & Co.KG (Wennigsen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘Lybera’ — Application for registration No 12 155 743

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fith Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2016 in Case R 3219/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 23 May 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(2) Steel Abrasives — Rapporteur: Hungary
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, metallurgical industry, price agreement, sanction (EU), steel








C_2016366EN.01000502.xml










5.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 23 May 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(2) Steel Abrasives
Rapporteur: Hungary
(2016/C 366/05)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction based on the mitigating circumstances.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the adaptation of the fine based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.










8.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-235/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Pari Pharma v EMA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Order granting suspension of operation of the decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Application for cancellation — No change in circumstances — Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, market approval, medicinal product








C_2016260EN.01003902.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/39





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Pari Pharma v EMA
(Case T-235/15 R)
((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Order granting suspension of operation of the decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for cancellation - No change in circumstances - Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court))
(2016/C 260/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pari Pharma GmbH (Starnberg, Germany) (represented by: M. Epping and W. Rehmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, A. Spina, A. Rusanov and S. Marino, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Camberley, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking the cancellation of the order of 1 September 2015 in Pari Pharma v EMA (T-235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587), by which it granted the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/271043/2015 of the EMA of 24 April 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Vantobra.

Operative part of the order







1.


The request seeking the cancellation of the order of 1 September 2015 in Pari Pharma v EMA (T-235/15 R, EU:T:2015:587) is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-754/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission (Interim measures — Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Refusal of registration — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU initiative, European citizenship, infringement of EU law, international negotiations, power of initiative








C_2016251EN.01003002.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/30





Order of the President of the General Court of 23 May 2016 — Efler and Others v Commission
(Case T-754/14 R)
((Interim measures - Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Refusal of registration - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility))
(2016/C 251/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany), Pedro De Birto E. Abreu Krupenski (Lisbon, Portugal), Susan Vance George (Paris, France), Otto Jaako Kronqvist (Helsinki, Finland), Blanche Léonie Denise Weber (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), John Jephson Hilary (London, United Kingdom), Ileana Lavinia Andrei (Bucarest, Romania) (represented by: B. Kempen)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for interim measures relating to Commission Decision C (2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the citizens’ initiative ‘STOP TTIP’.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-284/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Slovak Republic v Achmea BV
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, accession to the European Union, bilateral agreement, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, investment protection








C_2016296EN.01001902.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 May 2016 — Slovak Republic v Achmea BV
(Case C-284/16)
(2016/C 296/25)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Slovak Republic

Defendant: Achmea BV

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 344 TFEU preclude the application of a provision in a bilateral investment protection agreement between Member States of the European Union (a so-called BIT internal to the European Union) under which an investor of a contracting State, in the event of a dispute concerning investments in the other contracting State, may bring proceedings against the latter State before an arbitration tribunal, where the investment protection agreement was concluded before one of the contracting States acceded to the European Union but the arbitration proceedings are not to be brought until after that date?
If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:










2.


Does Article 267 TFEU preclude the application of such a provision?
If Questions 1 and 2 are to be answered in the negative:










3.


Does the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU preclude the application of such a provision under the circumstances described in Question 1?
Case T-262/16: Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, broadcasting, programmes industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016260EN.01004601.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/46





Action brought on 23 May 2016 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)
(Case T-262/16)
(2016/C 260/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro y J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘GLOBO MEDIA’ — Application for registration No 8 957 169

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14/03/2016 in Case R 561/2014-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


As a consequence of the above, reject opposition No B1697179 and grant registration of the contested mark as regards the services requested in classes 35, 38 and 41;










—


Order EUIPO and the other interveners to pay the costs of these proceedings if they oppose them and reject their claims.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-288/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 May 2016 — IK ‘L.Č.’
Date: 2016-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2016260EN.01003501.xml










18.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/35





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 23 May 2016 — IK ‘L.Č.’
(Case C-288/16)
(2016/C 260/42)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IK ‘L.Č.’

Other party: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 146(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that the exemption laid down therein is applicable only where there is a direct legal connection or a reciprocal contractual relationship between the services provider and the consignee or the consignor of the goods?










2.


What criteria must be met by the direct connection referred to in the abovementioned provision in order for a service connected with the importation or exportation of goods to be exempt?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.