do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-724/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2016441EN.01003401.xml










28.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 441/34






Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
(Case T-724/16 P)
(2016/C 441/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission;




and, giving judgment itself:






—


Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 refusing the requests for assistance;










—


Order the Commission pay the amounts of EUR 22 000 to Mr Falcione and EUR 35 000 to Mr Cocchi, in respect of the damage which they have suffered;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellants’ interest in pursuing the proceedings. The appellants, it is claimed, have more than a mere administrative interest in having their appeal upheld.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8166 — THOM/Stroili Oro) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, merger control, retail selling








C_2016373EN.01000102.xml










12.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8166 — THOM/Stroili Oro)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 373/02)
On 3 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8166. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-723/16: Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, chemical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016462EN.01003201.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/32





Action brought on 12 October 2016 — Mapei v EUIPO — Steenfabrieken Vandersanden (RE-CONzerø)
(Case T-723/16)
(2016/C 462/41)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Mapei SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Steenfabrieken Vandersanden NV (Bilzen, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Party applying for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘RE-CONzerø’ — Application for registration No 13 031 661

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 July 2016 in Case R 2374/2015-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and, consequently, register mark No 13 031 661 in respect of all the goods claimed, without prejudice to those goods already covered, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO in order for it to reverse its own decision by granting registration of the mark in accordance with the findings of the Court;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-524/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, social security legislation, social-security contribution, supplementary pension








C_2017014EN.01001902.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei Conti (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2016 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v Francesco Faggiano
(Case C-524/16)
(2017/C 014/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei Conti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Defendant: Francesco Faggiano

Questions referred







1.


Must the rules of EU law laid down in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/1998 of 29 June 1998 (2) be interpreted to the effect that a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, may not be made by a person already in receipt of a pension?










2.


Does Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/1971 of the Council of 14 June 1971 preclude a national rule such as the Italian rule laid down in Article 71 of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000, according to which a request for aggregation of social security contributions made to several pension funds, in particular in the home Member State and in another Member State of the European Union, is confined to those who have not yet acquired the right to a pension from any social security fund?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with a view to extending them to cover special schemes for civil servants (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8165 — Eneco/Elicio/Norther JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy production, merger control, wind energy








C_2016373EN.01000101.xml










12.10.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 373/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8165 — Eneco/Elicio/Norther JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2016/C 373/01)
On 5 October 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8165. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-166/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 91/250/EEC — Article 4(a) and (c) — Article 5(1) and (2) — Directive 2009/24/EC — Article 4(1) and (2) — Article 5(1) and (2) — Legal protection of computer programs — Resale of ‘used’ licensed copies of computer programs on non-original material media — Exhaustion of the distribution right — Exclusive right of reproduction)
Date: 2016-10-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer piracy, copyright, sale, software








C_2016462EN.01000302.xml










12.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija — Latvia) — Criminal proceedings against Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs
(Case C-166/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 91/250/EEC - Article 4(a) and (c) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Directive 2009/24/EC - Article 4(1) and (2) - Article 5(1) and (2) - Legal protection of computer programs - Resale of ‘used’ licensed copies of computer programs on non-original material media - Exhaustion of the distribution right - Exclusive right of reproduction))
(2016/C 462/04)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Rīgas apgabaltiesas Krimināllietu tiesu kolēģija

Parties in the main proceedings

Aleksandrs Ranks, Jurijs Vasiļevičs

The other parties to the proceedings: Finanšu un ekonomisko noziegumu izmeklēšanas prokoratūra, Microsoft Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(a) and (c) and Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that, although the initial acquirer of a copy of a computer program accompanied by an unlimited user licence is entitled to resell that copy and his licence to a new acquirer, he may not, however, in the case where the original material medium of the copy that was initially delivered to him has been damaged, destroyed or lost, provide his back-up copy of that program to that new acquirer without the authorisation of the rightholder.


(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.