do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








C_2016251EN.01000201.xml










11.7.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 251/2





Taking of the oath by new Members of the General Court
(2016/C 251/02)
Following their appointment as Judges at the General Court for the period from 29 May 2016 to 31 August 2019 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union of 24 May 2016 (1), Ms Reine, Mr Schalin and Mr Xuereb took the oath before the Court of Justice on 8 June 2016.


(1)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 76.
Case C-382/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, establishment, residence, right of establishment, shareholder, shareholding, taxable income, taxpayer








C_2016343EN.01003401.xml










19.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/34





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG v Finanzamt Landau
(Case C-382/16)
(2016/C 343/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hornbach-Baumarkt-AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Landau

Question referred

Does Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU, (formerly Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), in conjunction with Article 48 EC), preclude legislation of a Member State which provides that income of a resident taxpayer derived from business relations with a company established in another Member State in which that taxpayer has a direct or indirect shareholding of at least 25 % and with which that taxpayer has agreed terms that depart from those that would have been agreed on by unrelated third parties under the same or similar circumstances must be calculated as if that income had been earned pursuant to terms agreed on between unrelated third parties, if such a correction is not made in respect of income from business relations with a resident company and the legislation in question does not afford the resident taxpayer the opportunity to present evidence that the terms were agreed on for commercial reasons resulting from its status as a shareholder of the company established in the other Member State?
Case T-367/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cosmetic product, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law








C_2016305EN.01005201.xml










22.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/52





Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Brunner v EUIPO — CBM (H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE)
(Case T-367/16)
(2016/C 305/70)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gerd Brunner (Moosthenning, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘H HOLY HAFERL HAFERL SHOE COUTURE’ — Application for registration No 11 988 144

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2016 in Case R 2943/2014-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Opposition Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 10 May 2016 (Case R 2943/2014-5);










—


dismiss the intervener’s opposition of 12 November 2013 regarding EU trade mark No 11 306 545 and German trade mark No 302 010 023 903 (Case B002269325);










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-384/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical product, market approval, plant health control, plant health product, right to justice








C_2016314EN.01001501.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/15





Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission
(Case C-384/16 P)
(2016/C 314/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Order of the Third Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v. European Commission.










—


Declare the admissibility of the action for annulment lodged by the European Copper Task Force against the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408.










—


Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment.










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs generated by these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


The General Court committed an error of law by considering that Implementing Regulation 2015/408 (1) is a regulatory act that entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.










2.


The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the dismissal of the EUCuTF’s action would not impair its right and its members’ right to effective judicial protection.










3.


The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the EUCuTF and its members were not individually affected by Implementing Regulation 2015/408.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution. OJ L 67, p. 18
Case C-383/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal welfare, cattle, export refund, protection of animals, third country, transport of animals, veterinary inspection








C_2016371EN.01000301.xml










10.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Vion Livestock B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
(Case C-383/16)
(2016/C 371/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vion Livestock B.V.

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 5(4) and Article 8(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 (1) of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations…, read in conjunction with the provisions regarding the journey log in Annex II to that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that they impose an obligation on the organiser of the transport and/or on the keeper of the animals, when transporting animals to a third country, to keep the journey log up to the place of destination in that third country?










2.


Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 817/2010 (2) of 16 September 2010 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine animals during transport…, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the journey log was not kept up to the place of destination in the third country, for the reason that the transporter discharged the obligation laid down in point 7 of Annex II to Regulation No 1/2005 to give the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?










3.


Must Article 5 and Article 7 of Regulation No 817/2010, read in conjunction with Article 4 of that regulation, be interpreted as meaning that the export refunds must be recovered if the exporter is unable to prove compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005, in a situation where the veterinarian, in the context of the checks which he is required to carry out in the third country pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 817/2010, is unable to verify whether or not the route plan data (the journey log) are satisfactory, that is to say, whether or not they are in compliance with the provisions of Regulation No 1/2005 (and is consequently also unable to declare that the outcome of those checks is satisfactory), inasmuch as the transporter has given the journey log to the official veterinarian at the exit point?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 3, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 245, p. 16.
Case C-381/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016335EN.01004101.xml










12.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/41





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2016 — Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna v Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo
(Case C-381/16)
(2016/C 335/55)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera de lo Civil

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Salvador Benjumea Bravo de Laguna

Defendant: Esteban Torras Ferrazzuolo

Question referred

Is the claim for the recovery of ownership of a Community trade mark on grounds other than those set out in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) and, in particular, in accordance with the cases provided for in Article 2(2) of Spanish Law 17 of 7 December 2001 on Trade Marks (BOE No 294 of 8 December 2001), compatible with EU law and in particular with that regulation?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case F-35/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, pay scale, professional experience








C_2016326EN.01003601.xml










5.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 326/36





Action brought on 11 July 2016 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-35/16)
(2016/C 326/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: N. Flandin and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision refusing to classify the applicant in a grade which would, in her view, correspond to her professional experience.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case T-372/16: Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)
Date: 2016-07-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cultural event, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law, travel








C_2016314EN.01003401.xml










29.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/34





Action brought on 11 July 2016 — Bammer v EUIPO — mydays (Männerspielplatz)
(Case T-372/16)
(2016/C 314/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Alexander Bammer (Sindelfingen, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: mydays GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘Männerspielplatz’ — European Union trade mark No 8 534 364

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 1796/2016-1

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







—


The Board of Appeal’s decision did not focus on the time of the application for registration in September 2009;










—


The Board of Appeal did not sufficiently and appropriately take into account the extensive indicative value of the decisions of the Stuttgart courts;










—


The Board of Appeal did not correctly assess the documents from 2009 notably as regards also the reasoning of the Stuttgart courts;










—


In its reasoning, the Board of Appeal overlooked the fact that it imputed to the contested mark a meaning which, in any case, it did not have in 2009, on account of the fact that the designation showed no connection in particular to the registered goods and services;










—


The mark at issue therefore has a distinctive character and is not descriptive of the registered goods and services.