do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-356/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, aesthetic surgery, dissemination of information, trade information








C_2016335EN.01003602.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/36





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Wamo BVBA, Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol
(Case C-356/16)
(2016/C 335/49)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Wamo BVBA,
Luc Cecile Jozef Van Mol

Question referred

Should Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market be interpreted as precluding a national law which prohibits any natural or legal person from disseminating advertising relating to interventions involving aesthetic surgery or non-surgical aesthetic medicine, as provided by Article 20(1) of the Wet van 23 mei 2013 tot regeling van de vereiste kwalificaties om ingrepen van niet-heelkundige esthetische geneeskunde en esthetische heelkunde uit te voeren en tot regeling van de reclame en informatie betreffende die ingrepen (Law of 23 May 2013 regulating the qualifications required to perform non-surgical aesthetic interventions and aesthetic surgery and regulating the advertising and information relating to such interventions) (B.S., 2 July 2013), inserted by the Wet van 10 [April] 2014 houdende diverse bepalingen inzake gezondheid 2014 (Law of 10 April 2014 containing various provisions relating to health) (B.S., 30 April 2014)?


(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Case T-810/14: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2016 — Portugal v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement — Periodic penalty payment — Judgment quantifying the amount of the penalty payment — Repeal of the national legislation incompatible with EU law — Date when the infringement ceased — Annulment of an earlier decision quantifying a penalty payment imposed in compliance with the same judgment of the Court — Res judicata — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, national law, sanction (EU)








C_2016326EN.01002602.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/26





Order of the General Court of 27 June 2016 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-810/14) (1)

((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement - Periodic penalty payment - Judgment quantifying the amount of the penalty payment - Repeal of the national legislation incompatible with EU law - Date when the infringement ceased - Annulment of an earlier decision quantifying a penalty payment imposed in compliance with the same judgment of the Court - Res judicata - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2016/C 326/47)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. de Oliveira and S. Nunes de Almeida, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU asking for annulment of the Commission decision MARKT/A2/3523710 of 3 October 2014 quantifying the penalty payment due by the Portuguese Republic for the period between 20 and 29 January 2008, in compliance with the judgment of 10 January 2008 in Commission v Portugal (C-70/06, EU:C:2008:3).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


The Portuguese Republic shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.
Case T-330/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2016296EN.01003101.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/31





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Hello Media v EUIPO — Hola (#hello digitalmente diferentes)
(Case T-330/16)
(2016/C 296/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hello Media, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Alejos Cutuli, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hola, SL (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ — Application for registration No 12 440 574

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21/04/2016 in Case R 1979/2015-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject opposition B 2 336 348 to the application for a European Union trade mark No 12 440 574;










—


order the grant of European Union trade mark No 12 440 574 ‘#hello digitalmente diferentes’ (with graphic);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-33/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, dismissal, indemnification, probationary period








C_2016296EN.01004801.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/48





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice
(Case F-33/16)
(2016/C 296/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of 17 July 2015 to dismiss the applicant;










—


annul the decision of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint of 16 October 2015;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 60 000, by way of reparation for the applicant’s non-material harm;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/668 of 27 June 2016 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Colombia, Croatia, Peru, accession to the European Union, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2017097EN.01000101.xml










8.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 97/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/668
of 27 June 2016
         
on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union and its Member States, of the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Article 100(2), and Article 207 in conjunction with point (a)(v) of the second subparagraph of Article 218(6) thereof,


Having regard to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,


Having regard to the consent of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Council Decision (EU) 2015/1277 (2), the Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union (‘the Additional Protocol’) has been signed, subject to its conclusion.












(2)


The Additional Protocol should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The Additional Protocol to the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union is hereby approved on behalf of the Union and its Member States (3).


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to make the notification provided for in Article 12(2) of the Additional Protocol.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 27 June 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. VAN DAM
            





(1)  Consent of 7 June 2016.

(2)  (OJ L 204, 31.7.2015, p. 1).

(3)  The text of the Additional Protocol will be published together with the decision on its signature.
Case F-22/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: damages, indemnification, psychological harassment, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment








C_2016287EN.01003701.xml










8.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/37





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 June 2016 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA
(Case F-22/14) (1)

(2016/C 287/45)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 235, 21/7/2014, p. 34.
Case T-348/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, claim, executive agency, expenditure, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, research project, scientific research








C_2016296EN.01003901.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/39





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)
(Case T-348/16)
(2016/C 296/49)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (Brussels, Belgium)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Declare that the demand made by the defendant in debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26/05/2016 that the Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the MINATRAN project, a sum of EUR 245 525.43, is unfounded, and declare that that sum constitutes eligible costs; and










—


order the European Research Council Executive Agency to pay the applicant’s legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that the sum disputed by ERCEA constitutes eligible costs.
In support of the action, the applicant argues that the costs disputed by ERCEA and, in particular, the staff costs, travel costs and indirect costs are eligible costs. That argument is supported by the evidence which the applicant submitted to ERCEA during the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and, above all, by the comprehensive analysis of the evidence submitted.
Case T-345/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, music, performing arts, recording, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002901.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/29





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
(Case T-345/16)
(2016/C 314/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 880/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill.
Case T-344/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, music, performing arts, recording, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016314EN.01002801.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/28





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
(Case T-344/16)
(2016/C 314/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015;










—


The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods.
Case T-360/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Dimos Athinaion v Commission
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: approval, commercial vehicle, environmental protection, environmental standard, general mechanical engineering, motor vehicle, motor vehicle pollution, pollution control measures, technical standard








C_2016371EN.01000901.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/9





Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Dimos Athinaion v Commission
(Case T-360/16)
(2016/C 371/10)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Dimos Athinaion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: G. Georgakarakos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Commission Regulation (ΕU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016, amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6), (1) and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action the applicant relies on three pleas in law:






1.


The first plea in law claims an infringement of Article 191 TFEU, which sets out the objectives of the European Union policy on the environment.










2.


The second plea in law claims an infringement of Article 37 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which affirms the right to a high level of environmental protection.










3.


The third plea in law claims an infringement of Article 15 of Regulation (ΕC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information. (2)







(1)  OJ L 109, 2016, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 171, 2007, p. 1.
Case C-352/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, national law, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2016326EN.01001601.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Navarra (Spain) lodged on 27 June 2016 — Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor v Joaquín Taberna Carvajal
(Case C-352/16)
(2016/C 326/27)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Navarra

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Instituto de Religiosas Oblatas del Santísimo Redentor

Respondent: Joaquín Taberna Carvajal

Question referred

Is Royal Decree 1373/2003 compatible with Article 4(3) [TEU] and Article 101 TFEU, given that, even though that legal provision was enacted by the State, the courts may not review whether, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the amount of the tariff is excessive, this being a limitation of judicial review which, regardless of the importance and quality of the services, might constitute a restriction of free competition?
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping — Rapporteur: The Netherlands
Date: 2016-06-27
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions, European Commission
Subjects: competition policy, container, control of restrictive practices, freight rate, maritime shipping, price agreement, price increase








C_2016327EN.01000201.xml










6.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/2





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 27 June 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39850 — Container Shipping
Rapporteur: The Netherlands
(2016/C 327/02)






(1)


The Advisory Committee shares the Commission’s concerns expressed in its draft Decision as communicated to the Advisory Committee on 27 June 2016 under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.










(2)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the proceedings concerning the parties can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). A minority abstains.










(3)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments offered by the parties are suitable, necessary and proportionate and should be made legally binding on the parties. A minority abstains.










(4)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, in light of the commitments offered by the parties, there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission against the parties, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. A minority abstains.










(5)


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.






(1)  OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1.