do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-64/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, film industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01005601.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/56





Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Lions Gate Entertainment v EUIPO (DIRTY DANCING)
(Case T-64/17)
(2017/C 104/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lions Gate Entertainment Inc. (Santa Monica, California, United States) (represented by: C. Hall, Barrister and D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DIRTY DANCING’ — Application for registration No 13 930 102

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 in Case R 331/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and before the General Court.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-67/17: Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2017104EN.01005701.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/57





Action brought on 1 February 2017 — Italytrade v EUIPO — Tpresso (tèespresso)
(Case T-67/17)
(2017/C 104/79)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italytrade Srl (Bari, Italy) (represented by: N. Clemente, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tpresso SA (Zurich, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘tèespresso’ — Application for registration No 13 543 517

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2016 in Case R 959/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


alter the contested decision as provided for in Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 and in any case according to existing rules;










—


order, pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the interveners, if any, to pay the costs incurred by Italytrade Srl in the present proceedings;










—


alter the decision also with regard to the order for costs and order, pursuant to Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, EUIPO and the unsuccessful intervener to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-606/14 P: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl — Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity — Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, price of energy, reimbursement of aid








C_2017104EN.01001301.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/13





Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Portovesme Srl v European Commission
(Case C-606/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Aid granted by the Italian Republic in favour of Portovesme Srl - Preferential tariff arrangements for electricity - Decision declaring the aid measure to be incompatible with the internal market))
(2017/C 104/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Portovesme Srl (represented by: G. Dore, M. Liberati, A. Vinci and F. Ciulli, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Portovesme Srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 89, 16.03.2015
Case C-49/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumption, energy consumption, energy-generating product, environmental tax, fuel, heating, motor fuel, tax exemption








C_2017112EN.01002501.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 1 February 2017 — Koppers Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
(Case C-49/17)
(2017/C 112/35)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Koppers Denmark ApS

Defendant: Skatteministeriet

Questions referred







‘1.


Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (1) of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the consumption of self-produced energy products for the production of other energy products is tax exempt in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the energy products produced are not used as motor fuels or as heating fuels?










2.


Is Article 21(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may restrict the scope of the exemption so as to cover only consumption of an energy product used in the production of an equivalent energy product (i.e. an energy product which, like the energy product consumed, is also subject to tax)?’






(1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (Text with EEA relevance).

OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.
Action brought on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-3/17)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, application of EU law, food safety, fresh meat, import, import licence, meat product, veterinary inspection








C_2017108EN.01001701.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/17





Action brought on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-3/17)
(2017/C 108/15)
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:






1.


By maintaining in force an authorisation system for fresh meat and meat products, such as laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at Point 1.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions in Annex I thereto, and in particular Article 5 of that directive.










2.


Iceland bears the costs of the proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) claims that Iceland has breached its obligations under Directive 89/662/EEC by maintaining in force an authorisation system for the import of, inter alia, fresh meat and meat products.










—


ESA submits that the rules concerning the intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin and veterinary checks are harmonised at EEA level. Council Directive 89/662/EEC regulates veterinary checks in intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin. Its main objective is to eliminate veterinary checks at the EEA’s internal borders while reinforcing the checks carried out at the point of origin. The competent authorities of the EEA State of destination may only check, by means of non-discriminatory spot-checks, compliance with the relevant EEA legislation.










—


ESA submits that by maintaining in force the authorisation system for the importation of fresh meat and meat products, Iceland imposes additional requirements, which are not allowed by the harmonised at EEA level framework of veterinary checks.










—


According to ESA, the noncompliance with EEA law of such imposition of additional requirements has already been recognised by the EFTA Court in its judgment in Case E-17/15 Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State.
Case C-240/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform — Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff — Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs — Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission — Appeal dismissed — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, bailiff, damages, indemnification, judicial reform








C_2017129EN.01000301.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/3





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission
(Case C-240/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
(2017/C 129/03)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Vedran Vidmar, Mr Saša Čaldarević, Ms Irena Glogovšek, Ms Gordana Grancarić, Ms Martina Grgec, Ms Ines Grubišić, Ms Sunčica Horvat Peris, Mr Zlatko Ilak, Ms Mirjana Jelavić, Mr Romuald Kantoci, Ms Svjetlana Klobučar, Mr Ivan Kobaš, Ms Tihana Ms Kušeta Šerić, Mr Damir Lemaić, Mr Željko Ljubičić, Ms Gordana Mahovac, Ms Martina Majcen, Ms Višnja Merdžo, Mr Tomislav Perić, Mr Darko Radić and Mr Damjan Saridžić are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Case C-392/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, law of states, nationality, notary, right of establishment








C_2017104EN.01001602.xml










3.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/16





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-392/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))
(2017/C 104/24)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


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

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;










2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs;










3.


Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case C-241/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Darko Graf v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform — Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff — Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs — Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission — Appeal dismissed — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, accession to the European Union, bailiff, damages, indemnification, judicial reform








C_2017129EN.01000302.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/3





Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Darko Graf v European Commission
(Case C-241/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
(2017/C 129/04)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Appellant: Darko Graf (represented by: L. Duvnjak, odvjetnik)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Darko Graf is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.
Call for proposals — EIBI’s 2017 Social Innovation Tournament
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: European Investment Bank
Subjects: European social policy, innovation, invitation to tender, marginalisation








C_2017032EN.01001401.xml










1.2.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/14





Call for proposals
EIBI’s 2017 Social Innovation Tournament
(2017/C 32/07)
EIB Institute organises its sixth Social Innovation Tournament
The SIT promotes the generation of innovative ideas and rewards opportunities that fight against social exclusion, covering projects in a wide range of fields – from education, health care and job creation, to new technologies, new systems and new processes. All projects compete for four prizes in a General Category, and this year projects addressing the topic of ageing will also compete in the Special Category. Winning projects in both categories are awarded a 1st and 2nd Prize of EUR 50 000 and EUR 20 000 respectively.
Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/EibInstitute
For further information on this tournament and how to submit an innovative proposal, go to:
http://institute.eib.org/programmes/social/social-innovation-tournament/