do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-662/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, fruit vegetable, registered trade mark, seed, trade-mark law








C_2016441EN.01001902.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/19






Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Gall Pharma v EUIPO — Pfizer (Styriagra)
(Case T-662/16)
(2016/C 441/24)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gall Pharma GmbH (Judenburg, Austria) (represented by: D. Reichelt and L. Figura, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for registration of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Styriagra’ — EU trade mark application No 12 161 469

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 in Case R 724/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the opposition (Opposition Procedure No 002286568) to Community trade mark No 000233890;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Council Decision of 12 September 2016 adopting the Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU expenditure, budgetary resources, draft budget (EU), financial year, general budget (EU)








C_2016336EN.01000101.xml










13.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 336/1





COUNCIL DECISION
of 12 September 2016
adopting the Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017
(2016/C 336/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314(3) thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


On 18 July 2016, the Commission submitted a proposal containing the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017 (1).










(2)


The Council examined the Commission proposal with a view to defining a position consistent, on the revenue side, with Council Decision 2007/436/EC, Euratom of 7 June 2007 on the system of the European Communities' own resources (2), and, on the expenditure side, with Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1311/2013 of 2 December 2013 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020 (3),




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Sole Article
The Council's position on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2017 was adopted by the Council on 12 September 2016.
The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 12 September 2016.


For the Council


The President

M. LAJČÁK




(1)  COM(2016) 300 final.

(2)  OJ L 163, 23.6.2007, p. 17.

(3)  OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 884.
Case T-642/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, engine, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2016392EN.01005001.xml










24.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/50





Action brought on 12 September 2016 — Iame v EUIPO — Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane (Parilla)
(Case T-642/16)
(2016/C 392/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Iame SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Mostardini, G. Galimberti, F. Mellucci and R. Kakkar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrie Aeronautiche Reggiane Srl (Reggio Emilia, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘Parilla’ — European Union trade mark No 3 065 182

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 in Case R 608/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, on the ground of infringement of Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009, in so far as that decision dismissed action R 608/2015-1 and confirmed the revocation for non-use of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41;
and, accordingly:










—


dismiss the application for revocation under Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009 of EU figurative mark No 3065182 ‘Parilla’, of which IAME S.p.A. is the proprietor, in respect of all the goods and services claimed in Classes 7 and 41;










—


reserve all rights to submit further pleas in law and evidence within the time-limits prescribed;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement and misapplication of Article 51 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1642 of 12 September 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Iraq, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








L_2016244EN.01000901.xml










13.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 244/9








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1642
of 12 September 2016
         
amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 of 7 July 2003 concerning certain specific restrictions on economic and financial relations with Iraq and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2465/96 (1), and in particular Article 11(b) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 lists public bodies, corporations and agencies and natural and legal persons, bodies and entities of the previous government of Iraq covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources that were located outside Iraq on the date of 22 May 2003 under that Regulation.












(2)


On 6 September 2016, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one entity from the list of persons or entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply.












(3)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003 is amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 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, 12 September 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,


Acting Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 169, 8.7.2003, p. 6. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 131/2011 (OJ L 41, 15.2.2011, p. 1).




ANNEX
In Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1210/2003, the following entry is deleted:







‘109.


SOUTH REFINERIES COMPANY. Address: Basra, Iraq.’
Case T-656/16: Action brought on 12 September 2016 — PM v ECHA
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative formalities, aid to undertakings, payment, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2016402EN.01005802.xml










31.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/58





Action brought on 12 September 2016 — PM v ECHA
(Case T-656/16)
(2016/C 402/69)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: PM (represented by: C. Zambrano Almero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should admit its action against decision No SME(2016) 3198 and annul that decision on the basis that PM is a small and medium-sized enterprise and therefore, since the correct amount of charges required by law with regard to such an enterprise have been paid, the registration applied for should be granted.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the applicant raises a single plea, based on the definition of a small and medium-sized enterprise set out in Article 2(1) of the annex to Recommendation 2003/361/EC on the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. The applicant, together with the group of undertakings that it is a part of, claims that it satisfies the conditions laid down in that article.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1662 of 12 September 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Sicilia (PGI))
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2016249EN.01002001.xml










16.9.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 249/20








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1662
of 12 September 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Sicilia (PGI))


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, Italy's application to register the name ‘Sicilia’ 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 ‘Sicilia’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Sicilia’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), 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, 12 September 2016.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  
            OJ C 186, 25.5.2016, p. 15.

(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).
Case C-486/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño
Date: 2016-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, mortgage, national law, real estate credit, real property, seizure of goods, unfair terms of contract








C_2016441EN.01000901.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2016 — Bankia, S.A. v Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño
(Case C-486/16)
(2016/C 441/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 6 de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bankia, S.A.

Defendant: Alfredo Sánchez Martínez, Sandra Sánchez Triviño

Questions referred







1.


First.- Is it contrary to Articles 4(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to take into account, when deciding whether an early repayment term, like that in the contract at issue concluded between an operator and a consumer, is unfair, not only the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract but also the seriousness of the breach by the consumer after the formation of the contract?










2.


Second.- Is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts for an enforcement order to be made on the basis of an early repayment term declared unfair by a final judgment given in previous mortgage enforcement proceedings between the same parties and based on the same mortgage loan agreement, even if that earlier judgment is not recognised under national law as having the positive effect of substantive res judicata, but national law does provide that fresh enforcement proceedings may not be brought on the basis of the same enforceable instrument?










3.


Third.- In mortgage enforcement proceedings in which the court of first instance refused to make an enforcement order because the application was based on an early repayment term declared unfair in other, earlier mortgage enforcement proceedings, based on the same instrument and between the same parties, and in which the refusal to make an enforcement order was overturned by the appeal court which referred the case back so that an enforcement order could be made at first instance, is it contrary to the principle of effectiveness laid down in Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make the decision on appeal binding on the lower court or must national law be interpreted as meaning that the lower court is not bound by the decision on appeal when there is already an earlier final judgment annulling the early repayment term on which the enforcement order is based and, in that case, must the application for enforcement again be ruled inadmissible?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.