do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-174/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
Date: 2017-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, damages, fine, infringement of EU law, interest, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017161EN.01001602.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/16





Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by the European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 17 February 2017 in Case T-40/15, ASPLA and Armando Álvarez v European Union
(Case C-174/17 P)
(2017/C 161/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram, Á.M. Almendros Manzano and P. Giusta, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Plásticos Españoles, S.A. (ASPLA), Armando Álvarez S.A. and European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;










—


dismiss as unfounded the claim brought by ASPLA and Armando Álvarez at first instance seeking payment of an amount of EUR 3 495 038,66 as compensation for the damage they claim to have suffered as a result of the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time;










—


order ASPLA and Armando Álvarez to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.



The first ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of causal relationship, in that the General Court held that the breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time was the determining cause of the alleged material damage, consisting of the payment of the bank guarantee charges, whereas, in accordance with settled case-law, the determining cause of the payment of those charges is the choice made by an undertaking itself not to pay the fine during the proceedings before the EU judicature.










2.



The second ground of appeal alleges an error of law in the interpretation of the concept of damage, in that the General Court did not apply to the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of the bank guarantee charges the same condition which it imposed in respect of the alleged material damage resulting from the payment of interest on the fine, namely, that the applicants at first instance had to show that the financial burden resulting from the latter payment was greater than the advantage conferred on them by not paying the fine.
Case C-598/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole (Appeal — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(4) — Article 65(1) and (2) — Word mark LAGUIOLE — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law — Application of national law by EUIPO — Role of the EU Courts)
Date: 2017-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017168EN.01000501.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/5





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Gilbert Szajner, Forge de Laguiole
(Case C-598/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Article 65(1) and (2) - Word mark LAGUIOLE - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a prior right acquired pursuant to national law - Application of national law by EUIPO - Role of the EU Courts))
(2017/C 168/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gilbert Szajner (represented by: A. Sam-Simenot, avocate), Forge de Laguiole SARL (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to pay the costs;










3.


Orders Forge de Laguiole SARL to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.
Case C-172/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission
Date: 2017-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, claim, cost analysis, financial aid, proof, reimbursement of aid, working time








C_2017168EN.01002702.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/27





Appeal brought on 5 April 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-768/14, ANKO v European Commission

(Case C-172/17 P)
(2017/C 168/36)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice of the European Union should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 in Case Τ-768/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the substance.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment in Case Τ-768/14 of the General Court of 25 January 2017 contains findings of law which are contrary to rules of EU law and challenges those findings by this appeal.
The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:






i




First
, on the ground of a distortion of the sense of the evidence, in relation to the reliability of the system for the recording of work time.










ii




Second
, on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the action, to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.










iii




Third
, on the ground of an error in law, in relation to the rules that apply, with respect to the cross-action, to the allocation of the burden of proof.










iv




Fourth
, on the ground of breach of an essential procedural requirement and, in particular, on the ground of failure to state reasons in relation to whether the Commission’s claim was certain, of a fixed amount and due.
Case C-178/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Graziano Garavaldi v Ministero della Giustizia
Date: 2017-04-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, indemnification, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial proceedings, mutual recognition principle, national law, private international law, right to justice








C_2017277EN.01002102.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 5 April 2017 — Graziano Garavaldi v Ministero della Giustizia
(Case C-178/17)
(2017/C 277/31)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Graziano Garavaldi

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Question referred

Does the principle that everyone is entitled to a hearing by an impartial tribunal within a reasonable time, affirmed in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which has become a principle of European Union law by virtue of Article 6(3) TEU, read in conjunction with the principle arising from Article 67 TFEU, according to which the Union is to constitute an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights, and the principle arising from Articles 81 and 82 TFEU, according to which, in civil and criminal matters having cross-border implications, the Union is to develop judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases, preclude national provisions, such as the Italian provisions contained in Article 5 sexies of Law No 89/2001, which impose on persons entitled to the payment by the Italian State of ‘fair compensation’ in respect of the unreasonable duration of legal proceedings a series of obligations which they must fulfil in order to obtain such payment, and to await the expiry of the period referred to in Article 5 sexies (5) of Law No 89/2001 without, in the meanwhile, being entitled to take any legal action for enforcement and without subsequently being able to claim damages in respect of late payment, even in cases in which the ‘fair compensation’ has been awarded in respect of the unreasonable duration of civil proceedings which have cross-border implications or which involve a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the European Union and/or a matter in relation to which the European Union provides for the reciprocal recognition of judgments?
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/326 of 24 February 2017 amending for the 261st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations (OJ L 49, 25.2.2017)
Date: 2017-04-05
Institutions: European Commission, Service for Foreign Policy Instruments
Subjects: economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, terrorism, trade restriction








L_2017091EN.01004001.xml










5.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 91/40







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/326 of 24 February 2017 amending for the 261st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the ISIL (Da'esh) and Al-Qaida organisations

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 49 of 25 February 2017
)


On page 31, point (c) of the annex:
for:


                  ‘Ghalib Adbullah Al-Zaidi (alias: a) Ghalib Abdallah al-Zaydi b) Ghalib Abdallah Ali al-Zaydi c) Ghalib al Zaydi). Date of birth: a) 1975 b) 1970. Place of birth: Raqqah Region, Marib Governorate, Yemen. Nationality: Yemeni. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 22.2.2017.’,

read:


                  ‘Ghalib Abdullah Al-Zaidi (alias: a) Ghalib Abdallah al-Zaydi b) Ghalib Abdallah Ali al-Zaydi c) Ghalib al Zaydi). Date of birth: a) 1975 b) 1970. Place of birth: Raqqah Region, Marib Governorate, Yemen. Nationality: Yemeni. Date of designation referred to in Article 7d(2)(i): 22.2.2017.’