do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-798/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017006EN.01005501.xml










9.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/55





Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)
(Case T-798/16)
(2017/C 006/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hanso Holding AS (Tomasjord, Norway) (represented by: M. Wirtz, 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 ‘REAL’ — Application for registration No 14 020 093

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 in Case R 2405/2015-2

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 Articles 7(1)(b)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Council Decision of 14 November 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Greece
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Greece, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, free movement of workers








C_2016421EN.01000401.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/4





COUNCIL DECISION
of 14 November 2016
appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for Greece
(2016/C 421/04)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1), and in particular Articles 23 and 24 thereof,
Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 20 September 2016 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2016 to 24 September 2018.










(2)


The government of Greece has submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers for the period from 25 September 2016 to 24 September 2018:
I.   GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Greece


Mr Georgios NERANTZIS
Ms Panagiota STAMATIOU


Ms Christina LEVENTAKOU







II.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Greece


Mr Efthymios KATSIKAS
Mr Athanasios VASILOPOULOS


Mr Themistoklis GRIGORIADIS







III.   EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Members


Alternate members




Greece


Ms Rena BARDANI
Ms Evangelia ARANITOU


Mr Nikolaos ZOITOS




Article 2
The Council shall appoint members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2016.


For the Council


The President

G. MATEČNÁ




(1)  OJ L 141, 27.5.2011, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 20 September 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement for Workers (OJ C 348, 23.9.2016, p. 3.)
Case C-576/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, maintenance, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017144EN.01001401.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/14





Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)
(Case C-576/16 P)
(2017/C 144/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: TVR Italia Srl (represented by: F. Caricato, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, TVR Automotive Ltd
By order of 2 March 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered TVR Italia Srl to bear its own costs.
Case C-574/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2016 — Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, severance pay, temporary employment, work contract








C_2017030EN.01002101.xml










30.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2016 — Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. v Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez
(Case C-574/16)
(2017/C 030/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Grupo Norte Facility, S.A. (formerly Limpiezas Pisuerga Grupo Norte Limpisa, S.A.)

Respondent: Angel Manuel Moreira Gómez

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of the principle of equivalence between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, must ending of the employment contract due to ‘objective circumstances’ under Article 49(1)(c) ET [Estatuto de los Trabajadores: Workers’ Statute] and its ending on ‘objective grounds’ under Article 52 ET be regarded as ‘comparable situations’ and does, therefore, the difference between the compensation payable in either case constitute unequal treatment of between workers with fixed-term contracts and those with contracts of indefinite duration, prohibited by Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP?










2.


If so, must the social-policy objectives legitimising the creation of the ‘contrato de relevo’ model of contract also be deemed to justify, under clause 4.1 of the abovementioned framework agreement, the difference in treatment relating to the lower amount of compensation for termination of the employment relationship when the employer freely decides that such a ‘contrato de relevo’ should be for a fixed term?










3.


For the purposes of guaranteeing the practical effect of Directive 1999/70 EC, if there should be found to be no reasonable justification under clause 4.1, is the unequal treatment of temporary and permanent employees with regard to compensation for termination of their contracts, laid down in the Spanish legislation referred to above, to be interpreted as constituting discrimination of the kind prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter, and therefore as contrary to the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination that are part of the general principles of EU law?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Case T-808/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017014EN.01005401.xml










16.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 14/54






Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Jean Patou Worldwide v EUIPO — Emboga (HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE)
(Case T-808/16)
(2017/C 014/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Jean Patou Worldwide Ltd (Watford, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baran, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Emboga, SA (Petrel, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘HISPANITAS JOY IS A CHOICE’ — Application for registration No 12 789 971
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2016 in Case R 235/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-575/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, law of states, nationality, notary, right of establishment








C_2017022EN.01001701.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/17





Action brought on 14 November 2016 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-575/16)
(2017/C 022/23)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by laying down a condition of nationality for the exercise of the profession of notary, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; and










—


order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission considers that the condition of nationality laid down for the exercise of the profession of notary in the Czech legal system is discriminatory and constitutes a disproportionate restriction of the freedom of establishment. The Czech Republic has therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The Commission considers that the functions entrusted to notaries by the legislation of the Czech Republic are not by their nature linked to the exercise of public powers, so that the condition of nationality laid down for access to the profession of notary in the Czech legal system cannot be justified by the exception laid down in Article 51 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Case C-573/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2016 — Air Berlin plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, financial services, free movement of capital, indirect tax, national law, right of establishment, sale, securities, stamp duty, stock-exchange listing








C_2017022EN.01001601.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 November 2016 — Air Berlin plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-573/16)
(2017/C 022/22)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Air Berlin plc

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred







1.


Is the levying by a member state of Stamp Duty of 1,5 % on the transfer, as set out in the reference, in the circumstances set out in the reference, contrary to one or more of:






1)


Article 10 or Article 11 of the First Directive (1);










2)


Article 4 or Article 5 of the Second Directive (2); or










3)


Articles 12, 43, 48, 49 or 56 of the EC Treaty?














2.


Does the answer to the first question differ in circumstances where the transfer of shares to the clearance service was required in order to facilitate a listing of the company in question on a stock exchange in that member state or another member state?










3.


Does the answer to the first question or the second question differ in circumstances where the national law of the member state enabled an operator of a clearance service, where it receives approval from the taxation authority, to elect that no Stamp Duty is payable on the transfer of shares into the clearance service but that SDRT is instead charged on each subsequent sale of shares within the clearance service (at the rate of 0,5 % of the sale consideration)?










4.


Does the answer to the third question differ in circumstances where the structure of the transactions chosen by the company in question means that the benefit of the election cannot be enjoyed?






(1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

OJ L 249, p. 25


(2)  Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital

OJ L 46, p. 11
Case T-792/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (ojo sunglasses)
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017022EN.01004101.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/41





Action brought on 14 November 2016 — N & C Franchise v EUIPO — Eschenbach Optik (ojo sunglasses)
(Case T-792/16)
(2017/C 022/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: N & C Franchise Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Chrysanthis, P.-V. Chardalia and A. Vasilogamvrou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eschenbach Optik GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ojo sunglasses’ – EU trade mark No 13 224 761

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2016 in Case R 32/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs and legal fees of the applicant.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-503/16: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Dulière v Commission
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2017022EN.01006004.xml










23.1.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/60





Order of the General Court of 14 November 2016 — Dulière v Commission
(Case T-503/16) (1)

(2017/C 022/83)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-15/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case C-572/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2016 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU emission allowance, air quality, combustion gases, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, technical specification, tradeable emission permit








C_2017053EN.01002201.xml










20.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 14 November 2016 — INEOS Köln GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-572/16)
(2017/C 053/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: INEOS Köln GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Question referred

Do the provisions of Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1) and the provisions of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC (2) preclude legislation enacted by a Member State which, for the 2013-2020 trading period, prescribes a mandatory substantive time limit applicable to out-of-time applications for the allocation of free emissions allowances to existing installations, thereby making it impossible to correct errors or to supplement (incomplete) data in the allocation application in cases where such shortcomings are not established until after the time limit laid down by the Member State has expired?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1.
Council Decision of 14 November 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for France and Italy
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: France, Italy, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members, occupational safety








C_2016421EN.01000201.xml










16.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 421/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 14 November 2016
appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for France and Italy
(2016/C 421/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Council Decision of 22 July 2003 setting up an Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the list of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 24 February 2016 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period from 29 February 2016 until 28 February 2019.










(2)


The governments of France and Italy have submitted further nominations for several posts to be filled,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
Article 1
The following are hereby appointed members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 28 February 2019:
I.   TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Member


Alternate member




France


Mr Abderrafik ZAIGOUCHE


Ms Edina LAMOUREUX
Mr Jean-Paul ZERBIB




Italy


Ms Silvana CAPPUCCIO


Ms Cinzia FRASCHERI
Mr Marco LUPI







II.   EMPLOYERS’ REPRESENTATIVES







Country


Member


Alternate member




France


Ms Nathalie BUET


Mr Patrick LEVY
Mr Franck GAMBELLI




Italy


Ms Fabiola LEUZZI


Mr Giorgio RUSSOMANNO
Mr Pier Paolo MASCIOCCHI




Article 2
The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.
Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2016.


For the Council


The President

G. MATEČNÁ




(1)  OJ C 218, 13.9.2003, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision of 24 February 2016 appointing the members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work (OJ C 79, 1.3.2016, p. 1).
Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1984 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria applies
Date: 2016-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, personal data








CI2016418EN.01000201.xml










14.11.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 418/2





Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1984 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria applies
(2016/C 418 I/02)
The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):
The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (2), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1984 (3).
The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




DG C 1C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu




The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1984.
The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.
The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.
The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.
Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (4).
Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.
Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.


(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 305 I, 14.11.2016, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.