do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-189/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, biometrics, claim, expenditure, financial aid, information technology applications, reimbursement of aid, research project, scientific research








C_2017151EN.01004301.xml










15.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/43





Action brought on 20 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
(Case T-189/17)
(2017/C 151/55)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 64 720,19 of the payment received by it for the HUMABIO project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615288/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 27 830,27;










—


declare that the sum of EUR 27 830,27 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615288/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the HUMABIO project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the HUMABIO project, a sum of EUR 64 720,19. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.










2.


In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 27 830,27constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.










3.


ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 27 830,27constitutes eligible staff costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.
Case C-139/17 P: Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law








C_2017357EN.01000201.xml










23.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/2





Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15, QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-139/17 P)
(2017/C 357/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Microchip Technology, Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2017;










—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4).





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal, lodged against the judgment of the General Court, on the following considerations:
The appeal alleges an infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. (1) The General Court, it is submitted, erred in proceeding on the basis of the premiss that the intervener had, on 9 April 2013, submitted the correct application for registration of the change of ownership and had merely used an incorrect form for that purpose. In fact, the application for a ‘change of name or address of a proprietor’ related to all of SMSC Europe GmbH’s trade marks (14) and was also interpreted by EUIPO in that manner, as the letter of 14 April 2013 makes clear. It is therefore not in dispute that EUIPO dismissed the application of 9 April 2013 in its entirety and upheld only the application lodged on 14 June 2013, after the period for submitting a statement of opposition had expired.
The appeal further alleges infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. Neither the Opposition Division nor the Board of Appeal, it is submitted, addressed the determination of the relevant public in anything approaching a sufficiently satisfactory manner. The assessment of the likelihood of confusion cannot take place without determination of the relevant public and the distinctiveness in relation to each of the individual goods and services. This is even more so the case as regards the General Court’s finding that the similarity of the signs in question for a specialist public — to which the General Court does not belong — is ‘low’.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case T-199/16: Order of the General Court of 20 March 2017 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission (Action for annulment — System of traditional specialities guaranteed — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 — Time-limit for the forwarding of the notice of opposition to the Commission by the competent authorities — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, designation of origin, labelling, limitation of legal proceedings, milk, product designation








C_2017178EN.01002002.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/20





Order of the General Court of 20 March 2017 — Kohrener Landmolkerei and DHG v Commission
(Case T-199/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - System of traditional specialities guaranteed - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 - Time-limit for the forwarding of the notice of opposition to the Commission by the competent authorities - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2017/C 178/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH (Penig, Germany) and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH (Frohburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Triantafyllou, J. Guillem Carrau and J. Herkommer, and subsequently D. Triantafyllou and J. Herkommer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/304 of 2 March 2016 entering a name in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed (Heumilch/Haymilk/Latte fieno/Lait de foin/Leche de heno (TSG)) (OJ 2016 L 58, p. 28).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Kohrener Landmolkerei GmbH and DHG Deutsche Heumilchgesellschaft mbH shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case C-143/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: artistic profession, equal treatment, gender equality, pension scheme, performing arts, retirement conditions, sexual discrimination, social policy, work contract








C_2017249EN.01001701.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Catia Passeri v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
(Case C-143/17)
(2017/C 249/26)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Catia Passeri

Respondent: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

Question referred

Are the provisions of national law in Article 3(7) of Decree Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, according to which ‘
            for workers in the performing arts belonging to the category of dancers, the retirement age is fixed for men and women at the forty-fifth year of chronological age, with the use, for workers to whom the contributory or mixed system applies in full, of the transformation coefficient referred to in Article 1(6) of the Law of 8 August 1995, No 335, relative to the higher age. For the two years following the date of entry into force of this provision, the workers referred to in this paragraph employed on contracts of indefinite duration, who have reached or passed the retirement age, are afforded the option, renewable annually, of remaining in service. This option must be exercised through a formal application to be presented to the ENPALS within two months of the date of entry into force of this provision, or at least three months before pension rights are fully vested, without prejudice to the maximum retirement age of forty-seven years for women and fifty-two for men
            ’, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, laid down in Directive 2006/54 (1) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21)?


(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Case T-182/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01003202.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/32





Action brought on 20 March 2017 — Novartis v EUIPO — Chiesi Farmaceutici (AKANTO)
(Case T-182/17)
(2017/C 161/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Suisse) (represented by: L. Junquera Lara, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chiesi Farmaceutici SpA (Parma, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AKANTO’ — Application for registration No 13 289 781

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 531/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare that Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the sign at issue (European trade mark No 13 289 781) in respect of the goods in class 5 described in the application for registration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-142/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: artistic profession, equal treatment, gender equality, pension scheme, performing arts, retirement conditions, sexual discrimination, social policy, work contract








C_2017249EN.01001603.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
(Case C-142/17)
(2017/C 249/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera

Defendant: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

Question referred

Is the national legislation referred to in Article 3(7) of Decree Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, according to which ‘
            for workers in the performing arts belonging to the category of dancers, the retirement age is fixed for men and women at the forty-fifth year of chronological age, with the use, for workers to whom the contributory or mixed system applies in full, of the transformation coefficient referred to in Article 1(6) of the Law of 8 August 1995, No 335, relative to the higher age. For the two years following the date of entry into force of this provision, the workers referred to in this paragraph employed on contracts of indefinite duration, who have reached or passed the retirement age, are afforded the option, renewable annually, of remaining in service. This option must be exercised through a formal application to be presented to the ENPALS within two months of the date of entry into force of this provision, or at least three months before pension rights are fully vested, without prejudice to the maximum retirement age of forty-seven years for women and fifty-two for men
            ’, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, as laid down in Directive 2006/54 (1) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21)?


(1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
Case T-170/17: Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission
Date: 2017-03-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, reassignment, retirement conditions, staff regulations








C_2017161EN.01003002.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/30





Action brought on 20 March 2017 — RW v Commission
(Case T-170/17)
(2017/C 161/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


set aside the decision of 2 March 2017 whereby the applicant is automatically retired with effect from 1 June 2017;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest infringement of Articles 47 and 52 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the applicant had not yet reached the statutory retirement age at the time that the contested decision was adopted.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to have regard to the scope of Article 42c of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the defendant was of the view that that provision applied to officials who, although having reached the retirement age (that is to say that they may apply for retirement without a reduction to their pension rights), have not yet reached the age at which the appointing authority is required to retire them (ex officio).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since the defendant did not give any sufficient indication enabling the applicant or the General Court to review the merits of the statement that it had carried out an in-depth analysis of the needs of the Commission’s other services, whereby it concluded that a new post in one of those services corresponding to the applicant’s current skills could not be provided for.