do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-89/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger
Date: 2017-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, cohabitation, family migration, family relationship, foreign national, residence permit, work permit








C_2017129EN.01000701.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 20 February 2017 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rozanne Banger
(Case C-89/17)
(2017/C 129/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant: Rozanne Banger

Questions referred







1.


Do the principles contained in the decision in Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh, ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department (Case C-370/90) [1992] operate so as to require a Member State to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of a residence authorisation to the non-Union unmarried partner of a EU citizen who, having exercised his Treaty right of freedom of movement to work in a second Member State, returns with such partner to the Member State of his nationality?










2.


Alternatively, is there a requirement to issue or, alternatively, facilitate the provision of such residence authorisation by virtue of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC (1) on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (‘the Directive’)?










3.


Where a decision to refuse a residence authorisation is not founded on an extensive examination of the personal circumstances of the Applicant and is not justified by adequate or sufficient reasons is such decision unlawful as being in breach of Article 3(2) of the Citizens Directive?










4.


Is a rule of national law which precludes an appeal to a court or tribunal against a decision of the executive refusing to issue a residence card to a person claiming to be an extended family member compatible with the Directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC OJ 2004, L 158, p. 77
Case T-119/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS
Date: 2017-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ethiopia, European civil service, allowances and expenses, diplomatic profession, expatriate worker, indemnification, living conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017129EN.01002601.xml










24.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/26





Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS
(Case T-119/17)
(2017/C 129/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera and 28 other applicants (Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

Declare and rule that:






—


The contested decision is annulled, insofar as it reduces, with effect from 1 January 2016, the amount of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 % to 25 %;










—


The EEAS is ordered to make a lump-sum payment to the applicants, the amount of which shall be determined ex aequo et bono by the General Court, in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;










—


The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the lawfulness of the EEAS’s decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to members of the temporary staff of the EU in the Ethiopia delegation from 30 % to 25 %.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to adopt the GIP of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.










2.


The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, insofar as the method used by the EEAS to set the amount of the ALC in a particular place of employment takes account of the principle of ‘regional coherence’.










3.


The third plea in law alleges the multiple manifest errors of assessment which therefore render the contested decision unlawful.
Case T-120/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v. EUIPO (fluo.)
Date: 2017-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic component, electronic device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017121EN.01004601.xml










18.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/46





Action brought on 20 February 2017 — M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon v. EUIPO (fluo.)
(Case T-120/17)
(2017/C 121/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: M&T Emporia Ilektrikon-Ilektronikon Eidon AE (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Spyridonos, 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 ‘fluo’ — Application for registration No 14 664 486

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2016 in Case R 863/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in the part that it has rejected the trade mark in question and allow the trade mark to be registered for all the goods of class 9 of the Nice classification applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the overall costs of the proceedings of all instances.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-111/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)
Date: 2017-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01003002.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/30





Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Computer Market v EUIPO (COMPUTER MARKET)
(Case T-111/17)
(2017/C 213/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Computer Market (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Dimitrova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘COMPUTER MARKET’ — Application for registration No 14 688 477

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2017 in Case R 1778/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.