do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-562/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air traffic, airline, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2017046EN.01001301.xml










13.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-562/16)
(2017/C 046/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Roßnagel, Alexandre Schröter

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)











2.


If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:
Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-561/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: energy distribution, energy efficiency, energy saving, payment, retail trade








C_2017022EN.01001202.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 7 November 2016 — Saras Energía SA v Administración del Estado
(Case C-561/16)
(2017/C 022/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Saras Energía SA

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Questions referred







(1)


Is legislation of a Member State establishing a national energy efficiency obligation scheme whose main method of compliance consists in an annual financial contribution to an Energy Efficiency National Fund established under the provisions of Article 20(4) of Directive 2012/27/EU (1) compatible with Article 7(1) and (9) of that directive?










(2)


Is national legislation which provides for the possibility of fulfilling the energy savings obligations through the accreditation of savings as an alternative to the financial contribution to the Energy Efficiency National Fund compatible with Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of Directive 2012/27/EU?










(3)


If the above question is answered in the affirmative, is the provision of that alternative possibility for the fulfilment of the energy savings obligations compatible with the abovementioned Articles 7(1) and 20(6) of the directive when its actual existence depends on whether the Government establishes it on a discretionary basis through legislation?
In that respect, is such legislation compatible when the Government does not implement that alternative?










(4)


Is a national scheme which considers only retail energy sales companies and not distributors to be parties subject to energy savings obligations compatible with Article 7(1) and (4) of the directive?










(5)


If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative, is the definition of retail companies as ‘obligated parties’, without the reasons being determined for energy distributors not being so defined, compatible with the abovementioned provisions of Article 7?






(1)  Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on energy efficiency, amending Directives 2009/125/EC and 2010/30/EU and repealing Directives 2004/8/EC and 2006/32/EC.

OJ 2012 L 315, p. 1.
Case T-773/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, external border of the EU, foreign national, infringement of EU law, third country








C_2017053EN.01002902.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/29





Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Salehi v Commission
(Case T-773/16)
(2017/C 053/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dominik Salehi (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: C. Drews, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the defendant has infringed Article 1(4) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (as amended by Regulation (EU) No 1289/2013) by failing to refer to the applicant’s letters of 1 July 2016 and 16 September 2016 to take the measures provided for in that provision and to send a communication to the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: infringement of the principle of reciprocity by the strict application of the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015










1.


Second plea in law, defendant’s failure to act




The applicant complains that the Commission has not adopted measures pursuant to Article 1(4)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1).
Case T-779/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Rühland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, lighting, lighting equipment








C_2017014EN.01004602.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/46






Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Rühland v EUIPO — 8 seasons design (Lamps)
(Case T-779/16)
(2017/C 014/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lothar Rühland (Wendeburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 seasons design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ No 1 402 341-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 July 2016 in Case R 878/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


dismiss the action for annulment of Community design No 0010402341-0006;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 6, of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-766/16: Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, State aid, capital increase, control of State aid, loan, professional sport, sports body








C_2017006EN.01004801.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/48





Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
(Case T-766/16)
(2017/C 006/60)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, in so far as it relates to Hércules, concerns a loan of EUR 18 million granted by a private body to the Fundación de la Comunidad Valenciana Hércules de Alicante, another private body, which used a substantial share of the amount loaned to subscribe for shares in Hércules CF in the context of a capital increase. That loan was guaranteed by a public financial body, namely the Institut Valencià de Finances.
The Commission claims that, as a result of that transaction, Hércules CF benefitted from State aid, amounting to the difference between the actual costs of the guaranteed loan and the costs which it would have incurred under ostensible market conditions, that difference being updated from the date on which the loan was issued to the date of the decision.
In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees.






—


The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan.














2.


Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States.






—


Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage.














3.


Third plea in law, also raised in the alternative, alleging an incorrect valuation of hypothetical aid.
Case T-774/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2017006EN.01005002.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/50





Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Consejo Regulador del Cava v EUIPO — Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des propriétaires (CAVE DE TAIN)
(Case T-774/16)
(2017/C 006/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Consejo Regulador del Cava (Villafranca del Penedès, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cave de Tain L'Hermitage, union des proprietaires (Tain L'Hermitage, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word figurative mark in colours containing the word elements ‘CAVE DE TAIN’ – EU trade mark No 11 345 824

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2016 in Case R 980/2015-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it does not invalidate the Contested EUTM with regard to ‘sparkling wines with a registered designation of origin’;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to Articles 102(1)(b) and 103(2)(b) of Regulation No 1308/2013.
Case T-767/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, metal coating, paints and varnishes, plastics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2016475EN.01002401.xml










19.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 475/24





Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)
(Case T-767/16)
(2016/C 475/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Nanogate AG (Quierschied, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘metals’ — Application No 14 259 981

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 2361/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1959 of 7 November 2016 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Anguria Reggiana (PGI))
Date: 2016-11-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Emilia-Romagna, Italy, designation of origin, fresh vegetable, fruit vegetable, labelling, product designation








L_2016301EN.01001201.xml










9.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 301/12








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2016/1959
of 7 November 2016
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Anguria Reggiana (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 ‘Anguria Reggiana’ 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 ‘Anguria Reggiana’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Anguria Reggiana’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, 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, 7 November 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 250, 9.7.2016, p. 4.

(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).