do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-755/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Alessandro La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016475EN.01002301.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/23





Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Alessandro La Rocca v EUIPO (Take your time Pay After)
(Case T-755/16)
(2016/C 475/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alessandro La Rocca (Anzio, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani, J. Graffer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Take your time Pay After’ — Application for registration No 14 396 031

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 August 2016 in Case R 406/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


rule that there has been an infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


rule that there has been an infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and, accordingly;










—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO in Case R 406/2016-1, made on 4 August 2016 and notified on 31 August 2016;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs and fees incurred in the present proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-763/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU military mission, Niger, Sahel, damages, psychological harassment








C_2017006EN.01004602.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/46





Action brought on 31 October 2016 — PY v EUCAP Sahel Niger
(Case T-763/16)
(2017/C 006/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PY (Souffelweyersheim, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

Defendant: EUCAP Sahel Niger (Niamey, Niger)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the present action to be admissible and well founded;




and accordingly,






—


declare the Mission to be liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU;










—


order the payment of compensation for the material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the payment of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 70 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant invokes a single plea in law, alleging contractual breaches on the part of the Mission EUCAP Sahel Niger (‘the Mission’) which render it contractually liable within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU.
The applicant, a former member of staff of the Mission, alleges that the Mission committed contractual breaches in relation to internal investigation procedures and procedures for the protection of victims where a claim of harassment in the workplace has been made. Due to the Mission’s failure to act and its failure to open an internal investigation, the harassment reported by the applicant continued, intensified and resulted in substantial adverse effects on his health, leading to his emergency repatriation. It was not possible for the applicant to resume his duties before the expiry of his contract.
The applicant consequently seeks compensation for the non-material damage that he has suffered as a result of (i) being forced to endure harassment, despite having reported it, for many months, something that the Mission could have prevented, (ii) being laid off from work and (iii) the deterioration in his health and particularly the depression from which he has been suffering ever since. The applicant also seeks compensation for the financial damage resulting from the loss of his remuneration after 30 days on sick leave and from loss of the chance to have his contract of employment renewed.
Case C-555/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cessation of trading, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, game of chance, national law, right of establishment, tendering, trade licence, trade restriction, usufruct








C_2017195EN.01000701.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Salerno (Italy) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria
(Case C-555/16)
(2017/C 195/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Salerno

Parties to the main proceedings

Vincenzo D’Andria and Giuseppina D’Andria
By order of 4 April 2017 the Court (Seventh Chamber) held that:






1.


Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation on betting and gaming, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the organisation of a new call for tenders for the award of licences with a shorter period of validity than that of the licences awarded in the past on account of the reorganisation of the system through the alignment of licence expiry dates.










2.


Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.
Case C-550/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family migration, foreign national, infancy, refugee, right of asylum








C_2017038EN.01000702.xml










6.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 38/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — A, S v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-550/16)
(2017/C 038/10)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A, S

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Question referred

In matters relating to family reunification for refugees, must the term ‘unaccompanied minor’, within the meaning of Article 2(f) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, also cover a third-country national or stateless person below the age of 18 who arrives on the territory of a Member State unaccompanied by an adult responsible by law or custom and who:






—


applies for asylum,










—


during the asylum procedure, attains the age of 18 on the territory of the Member State,










—


is granted asylum with retroactive effect to the date of the application, and










—


subsequently applies for family reunification?






(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
Case C-549/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano (Italia) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano v Palais Kaiserkron Srl
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, business lease, registration tax, tax collection








C_2017030EN.01001901.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano (Italia) lodged on 31 October 2016 — Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano v Palais Kaiserkron Srl
(Case C-549/16)
(2017/C 030/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di Secondo Grado di Bolzano

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione provinciale Ufficio controlli di Bolzano

Respondent: Palais Kaiserkron Srl

Question referred

Must Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax and registration duty (payable on lease agreements for commercial property under Articles 40 and 5(1)(a-bis) of the first part of the schedule of charges of Presidential Decree No 131 of 26 April 1986) may be levied cumulatively, or rather as meaning that registration duty is in the nature of a turnover tax?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-551/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, free movement of workers, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, unemployment insurance








C_2017030EN.01002001.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2016 — J. Klein Schiphorst v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
(Case C-551/16)
(2017/C 030/24)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: J. Klein Schiphorst

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

Questions referred







1.


May the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004, (1) having regard to Article 63 and Article 7 of Regulation No 883/2004, the objective and scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and the free movement of persons and workers, be applied in such a way that a request for the extension of the export of an unemployment benefit can in principle be refused unless, in the view of the Uwv [Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen: Management Board of the Employee Insurance Agency], given the particular circumstances of the case, for example, where there is a concrete and demonstrable prospect of work, it would be unreasonable to refuse the extension of the export?
If not,










2.


How should Member States apply the power conferred by Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Case T-762/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, disclosure of information, document








C_2017014EN.01004101.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/41






Action brought on 31 October 2016 — ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe v ECHA
(Case T-762/16)
(2017/C 014/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg) and ThyssenKrupp Steel Europe AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Scheidmann and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the ECHA’s decision of 26 September 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016);










—


alternatively, annul the ECHA's decision of 19 August 2016 (reference ATD/52/2016) to the extent that it rejects the applicants’ request for access to their file;










—


order the ECHA to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001






—


The applicants claim that the contested decision misapplies the abovementioned provision by erroneously finding that commercial interests would be undermined by disclosure and they further argue that the decision disregards overriding public interests.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(2), second indent, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union






—


The applicants assert that the contested decision violates the abovementioned provision and that, contrary to that decision, the documents to which access is requested do pertain to the applicants’ file and are not, therefore, excluded from the scope of that provision.
Case C-554/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2016 — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, cattle, database, grassland, transport of animals, veterinary inspection








C_2017046EN.01001201.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 31 October 2016 — EP Agrarhandel GmbH v Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-,Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
(Case C-554/16)
(2017/C 046/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: EP Agrarhandel GmbH

Respondent authority: Bundesminister für Land-, Forst-, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Questions referred







1


Does Article 2(4) of Commission Decision 2001/672/EC (1) of 20 August 2001 laying down special rules applicable to movements of bovine animals when put out to summer grazing in mountain areas (hereinafter: ‘the Commission decision’), as amended by Commission Decision 2010/300/EU (2) of 25 May 2010, preclude a provision of national law, such as Paragraph 6(6) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft über die Kennzeichnung und Registrierung von Rindern (Order of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management on the identification and registration of bovine animals) (‘2008 Bovine Animal Identification Order’)), BGBl II No 201/2008, which, as regards compliance with all the time-limits covered by that provision — and thus also that relating to notification of movement to summer pasture — regards receipt of the relevant notification as the determining factor?










2


What effect does the second paragraph of Article 117 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (3) of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 have on the eligibility for a premium of bovine animals whose movement to summer pasture was notified late within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Commission decision?










3.


If the late notification of movement to summer pasture under the second paragraph of Article 117 of Regulation No 73/2009 does not result in the loss of eligibility for a premium, are penalties to be imposed for such late notification?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 235, p. 23.

(2)  OJ 2010 L 127, p. 19.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16.
Case T-768/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — BNP Paribas v ECB
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: bank, banking policy, financial legislation, principle of proportionality, private-sector liquidity, savings








C_2017006EN.01004901.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/49





Action brought on 31 October 2016 — BNP Paribas v ECB
(Case T-768/16)
(2017/C 006/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BNP Paribas (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, decision ECB/SSM/2016 — R0MUWSFPU8MPRO8K5P83/136 adopted by the European Central Bank on 24 August 2016;










—


order the European Central Bank to pay the entirety of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the European Central Bank (ECB) committed an error in law in the interpretation of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1; ‘Regulation No 575/2012’).
Accordingly, the applicant in particular criticises ECB decision of 24 August 2016 for rejecting the request which it had made in order to obtain the authorisation to exclude the exposure of public sector entities to the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’):






—


as being contrary to the intention of the European legislature and to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 575/2013;










—


as rendering Article 429(14) of that regulation wholly ineffective;










—


as constituting an encroachment by the ECB on the powers of the European legislature.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is marred by a manifest error in the assessment of the prudential risk relating to the regulated savings, inasmuch as the ECB failed to take account of the legal framework and the empirical data relating to those savings as well as the relevant reports of the European Banking Authority, and made such an error of assessment both as regards the leverage risk and the other prudential risks relating thereto.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality which mars the contested decision, in so far as it, first, infringes the general principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty on the European Union, and second, it does not comply with the specific requirements of the principle of proportionality with regard to prudential supervision, requiring that the prudential requirements be adapted to the bank’s business model and to the risks associated with it for the financial sector and for the economy.
Case T-758/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Crédit Agricole v ECB
Date: 2016-10-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: banking policy, credit institution, financial control, financial legislation, investment company, principle of proportionality








C_2017006EN.01004501.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/45





Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Crédit Agricole v ECB
(Case T-758/16)
(2017/C 006/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Articles 256 TFEU and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 adopted by the European Central Bank on 24 August 2016;










—


order the European Central Bank to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the European Central Bank (ECB) in interpreting the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 575/2013’).
The applicant thus criticises, inter alia, the decision of the ECB of 24 August 2016 dismissing the application which it had submitted for authorisation to exclude public-sector exposures from the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’):






—


for being at variance with the intention of the European legislature and the objectives pursued by Regulation No 575/2013;










—


for rendering Article 429(14) of that regulation entirely ineffective;










—


for constituting an encroachment by the ECB on the powers of the European legislature.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law vitiating the contested decision in the assessment of the prudential risk associated with regulated savings, in so far as the ECB failed to take into consideration the legal framework, the empirical data relating to such savings and the relevant reports of the European Banking Authority, and in so far as it also committed such an error of assessment in regard to the risk of leverage as well as other associated prudential risks.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, vitiating the contested decision, in so far as that decision (i) infringes the general principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and (ii) fails to meet the specific requirements attached to the principle of proportionality in matters of prudential supervision, which require that prudential requirements be adapted to the business model of the bank and to the associated risks for the financial sector and the economy.