do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-316/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01003001.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/30





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-554S)
(Case T-316/16)
(2016/C 287/36)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-554S’ — Application for registration No 12 780 581

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1575/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case T-318/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01003102.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/31





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-444S)
(Case T-318/16)
(2016/C 287/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-444S’– Application for registration No 12 780 061

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1573/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/16)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, State aid, administrative competition, control of State aid, lease, private investment, telecommunications equipment








C_2016347EN.01003501.xml










22.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/35





Action brought on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf. against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-7/16)
(2016/C 347/07)
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 June 2016 by Míla ehf., represented by Espen Bakken, attorney at law and Atle Erling Lunder, attorney at law, Arntzen de Besche Advokatfirma AS, Bygdøy allé 2, 0204 Oslo, Norway.
The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:






1.


Declare void Articles 1 and 2 of ESA Decision 061/16/COL;










2.


Order the Authority to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 061/16/COL of 16 March 2016.










—


As a consequence of the EFTA Court's judgment in Case E-1/13, the EFTA Surveillance Authority initiated a formal investigation procedure to look into the lease by the Defence Agency of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland with Og fjarskipti of 1 February 2010, for the use and operation of an optical fibre. The investigation was concluded with Decision No 061/16/COL where the EFTA Surveillance Authority found that the lease did not involve State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.










—


The Applicant claims that the contested Decision rests upon a misapplication of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8066 — Randstad/Obiettivo Lavoro) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, employment service, merger control, temporary employment agency








C_2016223EN.01000102.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8066 — Randstad/Obiettivo Lavoro)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 223/02)
On 15 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M8066. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-346/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against C
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Schengen Agreement, border control, crime, frontier region, internal border of the EU, national law








C_2016335EN.01003401.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/34





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kehl (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against C
(Case C-346/16)
(2016/C 335/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kehl

Parties to the main proceedings

C

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft Offenburg

Questions referred







‘1.


Must Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 20 and Article 21 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (1) (Schengen Borders Code), or any other rules of EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to search, within an area of up to 30 kilometres from the land border of that Member State with the States party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement), for an article, irrespective of the behaviour of the person carrying this article and of specific circumstances, with a view to impeding or stopping unlawful entry into the territory of that Member State or to preventing certain criminal acts directed against the security or protection of the border or committed in connection with the crossing of the border, in the absence of any temporary reintroduction of border controls at the relevant internal border pursuant to Article 23 et seq. of the Schengen Borders Code?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Must Article 67(2) TFEU and Article 20 and Article 21 of Regulation No 562/2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), or any other rules of EU law, be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice which permits a criminal court in that Member State to use evidence to the detriment of the accused, although that evidence was obtained as a result of a State measure that infringes EU law?’






(1)  OJ L 105, p. 1.
Case T-317/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic equipment, office equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016287EN.01003101.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/31





Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Moravia Consulting v EUIPO — Citizen Systems Europe (SDC-888TII RU)
(Case T-317/16)
(2016/C 287/37)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Moravia Consulting spol. s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citizen Systems Europe GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘SDC-888TII RU’– Application for registration No 12 781 225

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2016 in Case R 1566/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case C-15/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports — Article 35 TFEU — Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium — Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void — Cross-border concession agreement — Restriction — Justification — Disproportionate)
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: export restriction, free movement of goods, invoicing, measure having equivalent effect, official language








C_2016314EN.01000401.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/4





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — New Valmar BVBA v Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl
(Case C-15/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Article 35 TFEU - Company established in the Dutch-speaking region of the Kingdom of Belgium - Legislation requiring invoices to be drawn up in Dutch, failing which they are null and void - Cross-border concession agreement - Restriction - Justification - Disproportionate))
(2016/C 314/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: New Valmar BVBA

Defendant: Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 35 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a federated entity of a Member State, such as the Flemish Community of the Kingdom of Belgium, which requires every undertaking that has its place of establishment within the territory of that entity to draw up all the details on invoices relating to cross-border transactions exclusively in the official language of that entity, failing which those invoices are to be declared null and void by the national courts of their own motion.


(1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2016223EN.01000901.xml










21.6.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/9





Euro exchange rates (1)

20 June 2016
(2016/C 223/10)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1332 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,57 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4359 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,77375 




SEK


Swedish krona


9,3338 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0884 




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,3575 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,063 




HUF


Hungarian forint


312,92 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3925 




RON


Romanian leu


4,5393 




TRY


Turkish lira


3,2821 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5188 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4520 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7936 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,5936 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5225 




KRW


South Korean won


1 312,29 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7941 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4562 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5180 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 024,25 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5942 




PHP


Philippine peso


52,434 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4231 




THB


Thai baht


39,877 




BRL


Brazilian real


3,8286 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0894 




INR


Indian rupee


76,3280 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-492/15: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — S, T v R
Date: 2016-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: custody, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, mutual recognition principle, parental responsibility, private international law








C_2016326EN.01001904.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/19





Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — S, T v R
(Case C-492/15) (1)

(2016/C 326/34)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.