do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-457/16: Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016364EN.01002801.xml










3.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 364/28






Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Schwamm & Cie. (Le Coq de France)
(Case T-457/16)
(2016/C 364/31)
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: Schwamm & Cie. (Saarbrücken, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Le Coq de France’ — Application No 10 882 331

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 June 2016 in Case R 1786/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, General Court (EU), allocation of work, judicial proceedings, rules of procedure








C_2016296EN.01000203.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/2





Criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers
(2016/C 296/04)
At its plenum on 11 May 2016, the General Court laid down, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedure, the following criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers:






1.


Appeals against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned as soon as possible after the application has been lodged, without prejudice to any subsequent application of Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, to the Appeal Chamber composed of the members of that chamber still in office after 19 September 2016, irrespective of their capacity as President, Vice-President or President of a Chamber.










2.


Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as possible after the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure.
The cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following four separate rotas:






—


for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;










—


for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Title IV of the Rules of Procedure;










—


for civil service cases;










—


for all other cases.
The President of the General Court may derogate from these rotas in order to take account of a connection between cases or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.








In the light of the decision of the General Court, taken at its plenum on 15 June 2016, on the conduct of the activity of the General Court from 1 to 19 September 2016 (OJ C 270, 2016, p. 2), providing that the decision of the General Court of 23 September 2013 on the criteria for assigning cases to Chambers (OJ C 313, 2013, p. 4) will continue to apply between 1 and 19 September 2016, the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers set out above shall be laid down for the period from 20 September 2016 to 31 August 2019.
Method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, judge, president of an institution, rules of procedure, vice-president of an institution








C_2016296EN.01000201.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/2





Method of designation of the Judge replacing a Judge prevented from acting
(2016/C 296/02)
On 13 July 2016, the General Court decided that, with effect from 20 September 2016, where a Judge is prevented from acting in the circumstances referred to in the second sentence of Article 17(2) and in the second sentence of Article 24(2) respectively of the Rules of Procedure, the President is to designate the Vice-President to replace the Judge prevented from acting.
If the Vice-President is prevented from acting, the President of the General Court is to designate the Judge replacing the Judge prevented from acting following the order laid down in Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, with the exception of the Presidents of Chambers. However, in order to ensure an even spread of the workload, the President of the General Court may derogate from that order.
Case T-456/16: Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016383EN.01001801.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/18





Action brought on 16 August 2016 — Galletas Gullón v EUIPO — Hug (GULLON DARVIDA)
(Case T-456/16)
(2016/C 383/25)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Galletas Gullón, SA (Aguilar de Campoo, Spain) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hug AG (Malters, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GULLON DARVIDA’ — Application for registration No 11 705 738

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 773/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Composition of the Grand Chamber
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: General Court (EU), appointment of members, judge, president of an institution, vice-president of an institution








C_2016296EN.01000202.xml










16.8.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/2





Composition of the Grand Chamber
(2016/C 296/03)
On 13 July 2016, the General Court decided that, for the period from 20 September 2016 to 31 August 2019, in accordance with Article 15(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the fifteen Judges of which the Grand Chamber is composed are to be the President of the General Court, the Vice-President, the nine Presidents of Chambers, the two Judges sitting in the formation of three Judges initially seised of the case and the two Judges who would additionally have had to sit in the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber of five Judges.
Case C-452/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Krzystof Marek Poltorak
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Sweden, legal system, police, ruling








C_2016383EN.01000701.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Krzystof Marek Poltorak
(Case C-452/16)
(2016/C 383/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Krzystof Marek Poltorak

Questions referred







1.


Are the expressions ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) and ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, autonomous terms of EU law?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: what are the criteria for determining whether an authority of the issuing Member State is such a ‘judicial authority’ and whether the EAW issued by it is consequently such a ‘judicial decision’?










3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is the Swedish National Police Board covered by the term ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and is the EAW issued by that authority consequently a ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?










4.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: is the designation of a national police authority, such as the Swedish National Police Board, as the issuing judicial authority in conformity with EU law?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Case C-453/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik
Date: 2016-08-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, arrest, public prosecutor's department, ruling








C_2016383EN.01000702.xml










17.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 16 August 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik
(Case C-453/16)
(2016/C 383/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Halil Ibrahim Özçelik

Questions referred







1.


Is the expression ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) a term of EU law which must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation?










2.


If so, what is the meaning of that term?










3.


Does the confirmation, as in the present case, by a member of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of a national arrest warrant previously issued by the police constitute such a ‘judicial decision’?






(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).