do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-705/16 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by WQ (*) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16, WQ (*) v Parliament
Date: 2016-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, equal treatment, in-service training, professional career, professional experience, staff regulations (EU)




C_2016454EN.01002901.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/29






Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by  WQ (*1) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1) v Parliament
(Case T-705/16 P)
(2016/C 454/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: WQ (*1) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-1/16,  WQ (*1)
 v Parliament;










—


annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 27 March 2015 not to include the appellant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds.






1.


First ground of appeal, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in law when it examined the plea in law submitted by the applicant at first instance alleging infringement of the general principle of equal treatment, by concluding that the applicant was in a different factual situation to that of a candidate with a qualification at the same level who completed a course of at least one year.










2.


Second ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it held that the decision at issue, that is to say, the decision not to include the appellant’s name on list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise, did not infringe Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the division of competences between the Union and its Member States in the field of education.










3.


Third ground of appeal, alleging that the CST erred in law when it dismissed the plea of illegality raised by the applicant at first instance, on the ground that the requirement for having completed a course of at least one year was justified and proportionate having regard to the nature of the certification process. In that context, the appellant submits that the CST also distorted his arguments when it concluded that he had not contested the argument that taking into consideration the qualification at issue would have had the effect of highlighting his professional experience acquired at the institutions twice.






(*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.
Case T-706/16 P: Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission
Date: 2016-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, maternity leave, promotion, sexual discrimination, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2016454EN.01003001.xml










5.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 454/30






Appeal brought on 3 October 2016 by HB against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission
(Case T-706/16 P)
(2016/C 454/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HB (Schweich, Germany) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in Case F-125/15, HB v Commission;
giving judgment itself,










—


annul the decision not to promote the appellant under the 2014 promotion exercise;










—


order the Commission to pay to the appellant the sum of EUR 15 000 in respect of non-material harm;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds, alleging several errors of law on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST).
First, the appellant alleges that the CST erred in law in taking the view that the appointing authority had carried out an effective comparative assessment of the merit points, that is to say, on an objective and equal basis, whereas it confined itself to disregarding the appellant’s merit points for 2013, because the 2013 staff report did not contain an assessment, without attempting to obtain comparable sources of information or information.
Second, the appellant considers that the CST erred in law in finding that the absence of an assessment in the 2013 staff report is attributable to the appellant and that the appointing authority was prevented from assessing the merit points for that year by the fact that there was no challenge by the appellant within the period prescribed in the Staff Regulations.
Third, the CST, according to the appellant, erred in law in finding that she had not adduced evidence to show that there was discrimination based on gender, whereas her staff report lacks any substantial assessment exclusively because of her long-term absences justified by her periods of maternity leave and pregnancy-related illness.
Case C-514/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues v José Manuel Proença Salvador and Others
Date: 2016-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability, erosion, homicide, motor vehicle, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance, tractor








C_2016475EN.01001201.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues v José Manuel Proença Salvador and Others
(Case C-514/16)
(2016/C 475/18)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Isabel Maria Pinheiro Vieira Rodrigues

Respondents: José Manuel Proença Salvador, Crédito Agrícola Seguros — Companhia de Seguros de Ramos Reais, SA, Jorge Oliveira Pinto

Questions referred







1.


Does the obligation, laid down in Article 3(1) of First Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972, to have insurance in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in the territory of a Member State apply to the use of vehicles, in any place, be it public or private, solely in cases in which the vehicles are moving, or also in cases in which they are stationary but with the engine running?










2.


Does the aforementioned concept of use of vehicles, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of First Directive 72/166, encompass an agricultural tractor, which was stationary on a flat mud track on a farm and was being used, as was usual, in the performance of agricultural work (herbicide spraying in a vineyard), with the engine running to drive the pump in the drum containing the herbicide, and which, in those circumstances, as the result of a landslip caused by the combination of the following factors:






—


the weight of the tractor,










—


the vibration produced by the tractor’s engine and by the spraying device mounted on the back of the tractor,










—


heavy rain,




fell downwards hitting four workers who were carrying out the same task on the lower terraces, causing the death of a worker who was supporting the hose that was being used for spraying?










3.


If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, does this interpretation of the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ in Article 3(1) of First Directive 72/166 preclude a rule of national law (Article 4(4) of Decreto-Lei No 291/2007 de 21 de agosto (Decree-Law No 291/2007 of 21 August 2007)) which excludes the obligation to have insurance laid down in Article 3(1) in cases in which vehicles are used for purely agricultural or industrial purposes?






(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).
Case C-515/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
Date: 2016-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, purchase price, solar energy








C_2016475EN.01001301.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 3 October 2016 — Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
(Case C-515/16)
(2016/C 475/19)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Enedis SA, formerly Électricité Réseau Distribution de France (ERDF)

Respondents: Axa Corporate Solutions SA and Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?










2.


If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?
Case T-707/16: Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)
Date: 2016-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2016419EN.01005701.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/57





Action brought on 3 October 2016 — Enoitalia v EUIPO — La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas (ANTONIO RUBINI)
(Case T-707/16)
(2016/C 419/74)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Enoitalia, Corte Vigna, Baldo, Belvino, Ca' del Lago, Invino, Vinuva, Cantine Borsari, Ca' Montini, E.I., Enoi, V.E.B., Cbe, Ca.Pi SpA (Enoitalia SpA) (Calmasino di Bardolino, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Rural Viñedos y Bodegas SA Ltda (Capital Federal, Argentina)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ANTONIO RUBINI’ — EU trade mark No 9 526 955

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 June 2016 in Case R 1085/2015-5

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 53(1)(a) read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.