do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-348/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities — Minatran contract — Eligible costs — Procedure by default)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, computer systems, debt, financial aid, reimbursement of aid, scientific research








C_2017161EN.01002901.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/29





Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
(Case T-348/16) (1)

((Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Demonstration Activities - Minatran contract - Eligible costs - Procedure by default))
(2017/C 161/41)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt in ERCEA debit note numbered 3241606289, of 26 May 2016, that the applicant repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that the debt in European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) debit note numbered 3241606289 of 26 May 2016, that Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis repay part of the grant which it received for the Minatran project, a sum of EUR 245 525,43, is unfounded, and that that sum corresponds to eligible costs;










2)


Declares that partial recovery by way of compensation, to the amount of EUR 132 192,12 of the debt claimed is contrary to grant agreement No 211166 concluded on 18 August 2008 for the implementation of the Minatran project and to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities.










3)


Orders the ERCEA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.
Case T-76/17: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017178EN.01003405.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/34





Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
(Case T-76/17)
(2017/C 178/56)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case T-49/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL — Earlier EU word mark NEORAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01002601.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/26





Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Azanta v EUIPO — Novartis (NIMORAL)
(Case T-49/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark NIMORAL - Earlier EU word mark NEORAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 161/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Azanta A/S (Hellerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Hoffgaard Rasmussen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 (Case R 634/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Novartis and Azanta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Azanta A/S to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case T-178/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor — Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01002701.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/27





Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)
(Case T-178/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor - Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2017/C 161/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 346/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt and Policolor.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Policolor SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-175/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2017 — X, other party: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cruel and degrading treatment, foreign national, illegal migration, refugee, removal, residence permit, return migration, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2017178EN.01001301.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2017 — X, other party: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen
(Case C-175/17)
(2017/C 178/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Belastingdienst/Toeslagen

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98; ‘the Return Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings challenging a decision which includes a return decision within the meaning of Article 3(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect where the third-country national claims that enforcement of the return decision would result in a serious risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the third-country national concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the third-country national concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?










2.


Must Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13; ‘the Procedures Directive’), read in conjunction with Articles 4, 18, 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, if national law makes provision to that effect, in proceedings relating to the rejection of an application for asylum within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2005/85/EC, the legal remedy of an appeal has automatic suspensory effect? In other words, in such a case, should the expulsion of the asylum-seeker concerned be suspended during the period for lodging an appeal, or, if an appeal has been lodged, until a decision has been delivered on that appeal, without the asylum-seeker concerned being required to submit a separate request to that effect?
Case C-176/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 6 April 2017 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała v Mariusz Wawrzosek
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer credit, consumer protection, negotiable instrument, unfair terms of contract








C_2017300EN.01001001.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/10





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich (Poland) lodged on 6 April 2017 — Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała v Mariusz Wawrzosek
(Case C-176/17)
(2017/C 300/13)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Siemianowicach Śląskich

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Profi Credit Polska S.A., established in Bielsko-Biała

Defendant: Mariusz Wawrzosek

Question referred

Must the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) thereof, and the provisions of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, (2) in particular Article 17(1) and Article 22(1) thereof, be construed as precluding the assertion of a claim, established by means of a duly completed bill of exchange, by a seller or supplier (the creditor) against a consumer (the debtor) in the course of an order for payment procedure pursuant to Article 485(2) et seq. of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego), in conjunction with Article 41 of the Law on consumer credit (Ustawa o kredycie konsumenckim) of 12 May 2011, under which the national court may examine the effectiveness of the claim arising from the bill of exchange exclusively from the point of view of compliance with the formal requirements applicable to the bill of exchange, without examining the relationship underlying it?


(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66.
Case T-203/16: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission (State aid — Complaint — Action for failure to act — Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, infringement of EU law








C_2017178EN.01002101.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/21





Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission
(Case T-203/16) (1)

((State aid - Complaint - Action for failure to act - Definition of Commission’s position terminating the failure to act - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 178/28)
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and S. Maaløe, acting as agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to comply with the time-limits relating to the duration of the preliminary examination procedure for State aid and, after the opening of the formal procedure, unlawfully failed to take a decision on the complaint, introduced by the applicant, relating to State aid.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Brancheforeningen for Regulerkraft i Danmark and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case T-210/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, electronic component, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01004002.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/40





Action brought on 6 April 2017 — International Gaming Projects v EUIPO — Zitro IP (TRIPLE TURBO)
(Case T-210/17)
(2017/C 161/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Qormi, Malta) (represented by: M.D. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRIPLE TURBO’ — Application for registration No 13 140 207

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2017 in Case R 119/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Special Report No 5/2017 — ‘Youth unemployment — have EU policies made a difference? An assessment of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative’
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU employment policy, EU initiative, education policy, employment aid, fight against unemployment, labour market, vocational training, youth employment, youth policy, youth unemployment








C_2017108EN.01000901.xml










6.4.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/9





Special Report No 5/2017
‘Youth unemployment — have EU policies made a difference? An assessment of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative’
(2017/C 108/06)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 5/2017 ‘Youth unemployment — have EU policies made a difference? An assessment of the Youth Guarantee and the Youth Employment Initiative’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu
Case T-219/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptiveness — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017161EN.01002702.xml










22.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/27





Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Aldi v EUIPO (ViSAGE)
(Case T-219/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark ViSAGE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptiveness - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2017/C 161/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2016 (Case R 507/2015-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ViSAGE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.
Case C-153/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres — Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC — Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental protection, health risk, infringement procedure (EU), pneumatic tyre, storage of waste








C_2017168EN.01001601.xml










29.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/16





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-153/16) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Inappropriate storage of a large number of used tyres - Landfill not complying with the requirements fixed by Directives 2008/98/EC and 1999/31/EC - Persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health))
(2017/C 168/20)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: A. Grum, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that, by accepting in a gravel mine situated on the territory of the municipality of Lovrenc na Dravskem polju (Slovenia) a persistent and continuous danger to the environment and human health, as a result of the inappropriate storage of large quantities of disused tyres, of the mixture of the latter with other waste and the landfill thereof in infringement of the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Slovenia failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(3)(d) of that directive, as well as Articles 12 and 13 and Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives.










2)


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3)


Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear its own costs and to pay two0thirds of those of the European Commission.










4)


Orders the European Commission to bear one-third of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case T-75/17: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, game of chance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017178EN.01003404.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/34





Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
(Case T-75/17)
(2017/C 178/55)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case T-214/17: Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, asbestos, business management, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, natural rubber, precious metal, precious stones, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017178EN.01002902.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/29





Action brought on 6 April 2017 — Out of the blue v EUIPO — Dubois and MFunds USA (FUNNY BANDS)
(Case T-214/17)
(2017/C 178/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and A. Zarm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frédéric Dubois (Lasne, Belgium) and MFunds USA LLC (Miami Beach, Florida, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FUNNY BANDS’ — EU trade mark No 9 350 794

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 1081/2016-2)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


overturn the contested decision;










—


declare the EU trade mark No 009 350 794‘FUNNY BANDS’ invalid pursuant to Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and (c) EUTMR;










—


order EUIPO to pay its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;










—


in the event that the EUTM Proprietors join in these proceedings as an intervening party, order it to bear its own costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-101/16: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission (Action for failure to act — State aid — Supply of timber — Preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber — Commission’s failure to adopt a position within a reasonable period of time — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, admissibility, control of State aid, supply, wood production








C_2017178EN.01002001.xml










6.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/20





Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission
(Case T-101/16) (1)

((Action for failure to act - State aid - Supply of timber - Preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber - Commission’s failure to adopt a position within a reasonable period of time - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2017/C 178/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH (Saalburg-Ebersdorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich, C. Hipp and T. Ilgner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period of time, in the context of the preliminary examination of an alleged State aid granted to the applicant by the German authorities in the form of contracts for the supply of timber.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.