do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-425/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016402EN.01001701.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Hansruedi Raimund v Michaela Aigner
(Case C-425/16)
(2016/C 402/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hansruedi Raimund

Defendant: Michaela Aigner

Questions referred







1.


May an action for infringement of an EU trade mark (Article 96(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) be dismissed on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith (Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424) if, despite the defendant having brought a well-founded counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the EU trade mark (Article 99(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424), the court has not yet ruled on that counterclaim?










2.


If the answer is in the negative: May the court dismiss an action for infringement on the ground of an objection that the trademark application was filed in bad faith, if the court at least simultaneously upholds the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity, or must the court delay the decision on the action for infringement in any event until the decision on the counterclaim is res judicata?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Case C-426/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others v Vlaams Gewest
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Islam, animal welfare, freedom of religious beliefs, meat processing industry, protection of animals, public health, slaughter of animals








C_2016383EN.01000501.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen and Others v Vlaams Gewest
(Case C-426/16)
(2016/C 383/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Liga van Moskeeën en Islamitische Organisaties Provincie Antwerpen, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Limburg, VZW, Unie van Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen Oost-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van West-Vlaanderen, VZW, Unie der Moskeeën en Islamitische Verenigingen van Vlaams-Brabant, VZW, Association Internationale Diyanet de Belgique, IVZW, Islamitische Federatie van België, VZW, Rassemblement des Musulmans de Belgique, VZW, Erkan Konak, Chaibi El Hassan

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Intervening party: Global Action in the Interest of Animals, VZW

Question referred

Is Article 4(4), read in conjunction with Article 2(k), of Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 (1) of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing invalid due to the infringement of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or Article 13 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, in that they provide that animals may be slaughtered in accordance with special methods required by religious rites without being stunned only if such slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse falling within the scope of Regulation No 853/2004, (2) whereas there is insufficient capacity in the Vlaams Gewest (Flemish Region) to meet the annual demand for the ritual slaughter of unstunned animals on the occasion of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, and the costs of converting temporary slaughter establishments, approved and monitored by the authorities, for the purpose of the Islamic Festival of Sacrifice, into slaughterhouses falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 853/2004, do not appear relevant to achieving the objectives pursued of animal welfare and public health and do not appear proportionate thereto?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55).
Case F-28/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Simon v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01005401.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/54






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Simon v Commission
(Case F-28/15) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/70)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Anne-Claire Simon (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Subject matter of the case

Application for annulment of the final decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1)


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2)


The parties shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015, p. 49.
Case C-424/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, European citizenship, foreign national, freedom of movement, imprisonment, removal, residence permit








C_2016350EN.01001901.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero
(Case C-424/16)
(2016/C 350/24)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: Franco Vomero

Questions referred







1.


Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.
If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred:










2.


Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is






a.


a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment,










b.


a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence,














3.


What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link.






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

OJ L 158, p. 77
Case C-422/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, common organisation of markets, labelling, leguminous vegetable, market approval, milk product, single market, vegetable product








C_2016350EN.01001701.xml










26.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 350/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier (Germany) lodged on 1 August 2016 — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V. v TofuTown.com GmbH
(Case C-422/16)
(2016/C 350/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Trier

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb e. V.

Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 78(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (‘Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013’) be interpreted as meaning that the definitions, designations and sales descriptions defined in Annex VII need 
not
 satisfy the relevant requirements of this Annex if the relevant definitions, designations and sales descriptions are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive additions (such as ‘tofubutter’ for a pure plant-based product)?










2.


Is Annex VII, Part III, point 1, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk’ is exclusively the normal mammary secretion obtained from one or more milkings without either addition thereto or extraction therefrom, or may the expression ‘milk’ — where necessary with the addition of explanatory terms such as ‘soya-milk’ — also be used in the marketing of plant-based (vegan) products?










3.


Is Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, in conjunction with Article 78, to be interpreted as meaning that the descriptions listed in detail in point 2(a), such as, in particular, ‘whey’, ‘cream’, ‘butter’, ‘buttermilk’, ‘cheese’, ‘yoghurt’ or the term ‘cream’ etc., are reserved exclusively for milk products, or can pure plant-based/vegan products, which are produced without (animal) milk, also fall within the scope of Annex VII, Part III, point 2, to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013?






(1)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.
Case F-133/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01005301.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/53






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission
(Case F-133/14) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/68)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jonas Poniskaitis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU Pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015, p. 50.
Case F-121/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004801.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/48






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Poniskaitis v Commission
(Case F-121/13) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jonas Poniskaitis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU Pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 53.
Case F-112/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Bouvret and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under national pension schemes — Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004301.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/43






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Bouvret and Others v Commission
(Case F-112/12) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme of the pension rights acquired under national pension schemes - Decision on the crediting of pensionable years applying the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Florence Bouvret (Brussels, Belgium), Beata Stepien (Brussels, Belgium) and Daniel Wille (Mouscron, Belgium) (represented initially by D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, next by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and last by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and last by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 379 of 08/12/2012, p. 35.
Case F-39/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Sajewicz-Świackiewcz v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016364EN.01004501.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/45






Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Sajewicz-Świackiewcz v Commission
(Case F-39/13) (1)

((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision on recognition of additional pensionable years applying the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
(2016/C 364/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jolanta Sajewicz-Świackiewcz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, subsequently by D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, then by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, and lastly by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, subsequently by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, then by G. Gattinara, acting as Agent, and lastly by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision fixing the credit for the pension rights acquired prior to entry into service at the Commission pursuant to the new GIP and the decision rejecting the complaint.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 60.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1322 of 1 August 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Κολοκάσι Σωτήρας / Κολοκάσι-Πούλλες Σωτήρας (Kolokasi Sotiras/Kolokasi-Poulles Sotiras) (PDO)]
Date: 2016-08-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Cyprus, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, root vegetable








L_2016209EN.01000701.xml










3.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 209/7








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1322
of 1 August 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Κολοκάσι Σωτήρας / Κολοκάσι-Πούλλες Σωτήρας (Kolokasi Sotiras/Kolokasi-Poulles Sotiras) (PDO)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Cyprus's application to register the name ‘Κολοκάσι Σωτήρας’ / ‘Κολοκάσι-Πούλλες Σωτήρας’ (Kolokasi Sotiras/Kolokasi-Poulles Sotiras) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Κολοκάσι Σωτήρας’ / ‘Κολοκάσι-Πούλλες Σωτήρας’ (Kolokasi Sotiras/Kolokasi-Poulles Sotiras) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Κολοκάσι Σωτήρας’ / ‘Κολοκάσι-Πούλλες Σωτήρας’ (Kolokasi Sotiras/Kolokasi-Poulles Sotiras) (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. — Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 1 August 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Věra JOUROVÁ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 105, 19.3.2016, p. 12.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).