do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-327/16: Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, foodstuff, marketing, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2016287EN.01003301.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/33





Action brought on 24 June 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Fratelli Polli (ANTICO CASALE)
(Case T-327/16)
(2016/C 287/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fratelli Polli, SpA (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTICO CASALE’ — EU trade mark No 10 531 432

Proceedings before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 April 2016 in Case R 1337/2015-2

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 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


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










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(g) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-358/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 June 2016 — UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others
Date: 2016-06-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, administrative sanction, civil rights, criminal law, national law, professional secret, right to justice, rights of the defence, supervisory power, termination of employment








C_2016335EN.01003801.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/38





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 June 2016 — UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others
(Case C-358/16)
(2016/C 335/51)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: UBS (Luxembourg) SA, Alain Hondequin, Holzem and Others

Questions referred







‘1.


Against the background in particular of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) enshrining the principle of good administration, does the exception of “cases covered by criminal law” — found at the end of Article 54(1) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, (1) and at the beginning of Article 54(3) — cover a situation concerning, according to national law, an administrative sanction, but considered from the point of view of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) to be part of criminal law, such as the sanction at issue in the main proceedings, imposed by the national regulator, the national supervisory authority, and consisting in ordering a member of the national bar association to cease holding a post as director or any other post subject to accreditation in an entity supervised by that regulator and ordering him to resign from all his posts at the earliest opportunity?










2.


Inasmuch as the aforementioned administrative sanction, regarded as such under national law, stems from administrative proceedings, to what extent is the obligation of professional secrecy, which a national supervisory authority may invoke under Article 54 of Directive 2004/39/EC, subject to the requirements for a fair trial including an effective remedy as laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, examined in relation to the parallel requirements of Articles 6 and 13 ECHR relating to a fair trial and an effective remedy, which together constitute the safeguards provided for by Article 48 of the Charter, in particular as regards full access for the person on whom the administrative sanction has been imposed to the administrative file of the author of the sanction, which is also the national supervisory authority, for the purpose of protecting the interests and civil rights of the person on whom the sanction has been imposed?’






(1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.