do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-553/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
Date: 2016-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, corporation tax, double taxation, establishment, free movement of capital, interest, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, right of establishment








C_2017022EN.01001001.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 2 November 2016 — ‘TTL’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia
(Case C-553/16)
(2017/C 022/15)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant:‘TTL’ EOOD

Respondent: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Sofia

Questions referred







1.


Is a provision of national law such as Article 175(2), point 3, DOPK, which requires domestic companies which pay out income subject to withholding tax to pay interest for the period from the point at which the time limit laid down for the payment of the tax on such income expires until the day on which a non-resident company established in another Member State furnishes evidence that the requirements for the application of a double taxation convention have been fulfilled, including in cases in which, pursuant to the convention, no such tax or a lower amount thereof is to be paid, compatible with Articles 5(4) TEU and 12(b) TEU?










2.


Are a provision of law such as Article 175(2), point 3, DOPK and a tax practice in accordance with which companies which pay out income subject to withholding tax are charged interest for the period from the point at which the time limit laid down for the payment of the tax on such income expires until the day on which a non-resident company established in another Member State furnishes evidence that the requirements for the application of a double taxation convention entered into with the Republic of Bulgaria have been fulfilled, which is charged also in cases in which, pursuant to the convention, no such tax or a lower amount thereof is to be paid, compatible with Articles 49 TFEU, 54 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65(1) and (3) TFEU?
Case T-770/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
Date: 2016-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, damages, freedom of expression, indemnification, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2017006EN.01005001.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/50





Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Korwin-Mikke v Parliament
(Case T-770/16)
(2017/C 006/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Jozefow, Poland) (represented by: M. Cherchi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


Declare the present action admissible and well founded;




In consequence:






—


Annul the decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 1 August 2016;










—


Annul the earlier decision of the President of the Parliament of 5 July 2016 imposing the same sanctions;










—


Order compensation of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm caused by the contested decisions; in the alternative award the applicant the sum of EUR 13 306;










—


In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, infringement of the freedom of speech and of expression of EU citizens, with the particular circumstance that the comments referred to in the decision were made by an MEP in the exercise of his duties and inside the EU institutions, and infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be stated for the acts of the EU institutions and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and/or infringement of the general principle of impartial treatment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the rights of the defence and Article 166(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons must be given for acts of the EU institutions and infringement of the principles of proportionality and ne bis in idem.
Case T-756/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)
Date: 2016-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building materials, designs and models








C_2017006EN.01004301.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/43





Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Euro Castor Green v EUIPO — Netlon France (Concealed trellis)
(Case T-756/16)
(2017/C 006/54)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Euro Castor Green (Bagnolet, France) (represented by: B. Lafont, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Netlon France (Saint Saulve, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: European Union design No 001 197 966-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11/08/2016 in Case R 754/2014-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the application, and its annexes, are admissible;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-754/16: Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)
Date: 2016-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, navigation aid, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01004001.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/40






Action brought on 2 November 2016 — Oakley v EUIPO — Xuebo Ye (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse)
(Case T-754/16)
(2017/C 014/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, California, United States) (represented by: E. Ochoa Santamaría and V. Rodríguez Pombo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Xuebo Ye (Wenzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a silhouette in the shape of an ellipse) — Application for registration No 13 088 191

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31/08/16 in Case R 2608/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible together with all the associated documents and the corresponding copies;










—


rule that the evidence offered may be submitted;










—


grant the application, annulling the contested decision and refusing the application for registration of EU trade mark No 13 088 19, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009.