do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-598/16: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2017 — Pipiliagkas v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Assignment — Transfer in the interest of the service — Reassignment of the applicant — Implementation of a judgment — Pre-litigation procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Jordan, Palestine, Union delegation, reassignment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017112EN.01003801.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/38





Order of the General Court of 13 February 2017 — Pipiliagkas v Commission
(Case T-598/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Transfer in the interest of the service - Reassignment of the applicant - Implementation of a judgment - Pre-litigation procedure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
(2017/C 112/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nikolaos Pipiliagkas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 266 TFEU and 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision not to adopt the measures for compliance with the judgment of 15 April 2015, Pipiliagkas v Commission (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29), and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 22 December 2015 reassigning the applicant from the European Union delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


Mr Nikolaos Pipiliagkas shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-28/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).
Case T-94/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017112EN.01004401.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/44





Action brought on 13 February 2017 — ACTC v EUIPO — Taiga (tigha)
(Case T-94/17)
(2017/C 112/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: ACTC GmbH (Erkrath, Germany) (represented by: V. Hoene, D. Eickemeier and S. Gantenbrink, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Taiga AB (Varberg, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘tigha’ — Application for registration No 11 459 617

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2016 in Case R 693/2015-4

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 8(1)(b) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-90/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dairy ice cream, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017121EN.01003801.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/38





Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Gelinova Group v EUIPO — Cloetta Italia (galatea…è naturale)
(Case T-90/17)
(2017/C 121/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Gelinova Group Srl (Tezze di Vazzola, Italy) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cloetta Italia Srl (Cremona, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘galatea…è naturale’ — Application for registration No 13 187 695

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2016 in Case R 207/2016-2

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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-77/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, international human rights law, refugee, right of asylum








C_2017144EN.01002802.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/28





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
(Case C-77/17)
(2017/C 144/37)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred







A.


Must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?










B.


If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?










C.


If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for refusing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










D.


If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for refusing refugee status without any consideration of fear of persecution, as required by Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?










E.


If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(5) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?






(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Case T-88/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, rural development








C_2017095EN.01002501.xml










27.3.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/25





Action brought on 13 February 2017 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-88/17)
(2017/C 095/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Sampol Pucurull and M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul in part, as regards the paying agency of Extremadura, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/2113 of 30 November 2016 on the clearance of accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period (16 October 2014-31 December 2015), under which that agency was not reimbursed in the sum of EUR 5 364 682,52.










—


Order the European Commission 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, alleging infringement of Article 69 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1), amended by Council Regulation No 473/2009 of 25 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 144, p. 3), in so far as it does not allow the deduction of a sum of EUR 5 364 682,52 (non-reusable amounts) in the clearance of accounts concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in the last execution year of EAFRD 2007-2013 programming period.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging, in the alternative, if the Court should hold that there is not an infringement of Article 69 of Regulation No 1698/2005, that the defendant’s acts are arbitrary, exceeding the institution’s discretion and also infringing the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Case T-96/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: automatic game, confectionery product, designs and models








C_2017112EN.01004502.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/45





Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Animated icons)
(Case T-96/17)
(2017/C 112/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0049

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1948/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case C-76/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 13 February 2017 — SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge having equivalent effect, consumer, customs drawback, payment, taxpayer








C_2017151EN.01001901.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 13 February 2017 — SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu v Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice
(Case C-76/17)
(2017/C 151/24)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SC Petrotel Lukoil SA, Maria Magdalena Georgescu

Defendants: Ministerul Economiei, Ministerul Energiei, Ministerul Finanțelor Publice

Questions referred







1.


Do the provisions of Article 30 of TFEU preclude an interpretation to the effect that, when a taxpayer has in fact paid a charge having equivalent effect, he may request the recovery of the sums paid by way of that charge even though national legislation has designed a payment mechanism for that charge in such a way as to pass it on to the European consumer?










2.


Is the recovery of sums collected in respect of a charge having equivalent effect, when those sums were in fact paid by the taxpayer (but not passed on to the consumer), compatible with EU law?
Case C-78/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, international human rights law, refugee, right of asylum








C_2017144EN.01002901.xml










8.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 144/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers (Belgium) lodged on 13 February 2017 — X v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides
(Case C-78/17)
(2017/C 144/38)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil du Contentieux des Étrangers

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Questions referred







A.


Must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) be interpreted as creating a new ground for exclusion from refugee status provided for in Article 13 of the Directive and, consequently, from Article 1A of the Geneva Convention?










B.


If the answer to question A is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU, thus interpreted, compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, the exclusion clause laid down in Article 1F of the Convention being exhaustively worded and requiring strict interpretation?










C.


If the answer to question A is no, must Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted as introducing a ground for withdrawing refugee status which is not provided for in the Geneva Convention, compliance with which is required by Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










D.


If the answer to question C is yes, is Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU compatible with Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention, as it introduces a ground for withdrawing refugee status for which no provision is made in the Geneva Convention, and for which no basis can be found in the Convention?










E.


If the answer to questions A and C is no, how can Article 14(4) of Directive 2011/95/EU be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 18 of the Charter and Article 78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which provide, inter alia, that secondary EU legislation must comply with the Geneva Convention?






(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Case T-95/17: Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: automatic game, confectionery product, designs and models








C_2017112EN.01004501.xml










10.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/45





Action brought on 13 February 2017 — King.com v EUIPO — TeamLava (Screen displays and icons)
(Case T-95/17)
(2017/C 112/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: King.com Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor and T. Dolde, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeamLava LLC (Redwood Suite, California, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

Design at issue: Community design No 2216416-0054

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1/12/2016 in Case R 1947/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 6/2002;