do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-71/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — Comercializadora Eloro, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative mark including word element ‘ZUMEX’ — Opposition of the proprietor of word mark JUMEX — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (b) and Article 42(2) — Evidence of use — Use in the European Union — Article 76(2) — Additional evidence of use produced out of time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO))
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, export (EU), fruit juice, import (EU), registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01001301.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/13





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — Comercializadora Eloro, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-71/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including word element ‘ZUMEX’ - Opposition of the proprietor of word mark JUMEX - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (b) and Article 42(2) - Evidence of use - Use in the European Union - Article 76(2) - Additional evidence of use produced out of time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)))
(2017/C 213/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, abogado)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent), Zumex Group, SA (represented by: M.C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Case C-502/15: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 to 5 and 10 — Annex I, Sections A, B and D — Urban waste-water treatment — Collecting systems — Secondary or equivalent treatment — More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: England, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Wales, pollution control measures, urban area, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment








C_2017213EN.01000901.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/9





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Case C-502/15) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 to 5 and 10 - Annex I, Sections A, B and D - Urban waste-water treatment - Collecting systems - Secondary or equivalent treatment - More stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas))
(2017/C 213/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: J. Kraehling, Agent, and by S. Ford, Barrister)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not ensuring that the waters collected in a combined urban waste waters and rainwater system in the Gowerton and Llanelli agglomerations are retained and conducted for treatment, in compliance with the requirements of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4 and 10 of, and Sections A and B of Annex I to, that directive;










2.


Declares that, by not putting in place secondary treatment for the urban waste water in the Ballycastle agglomeration and by not subjecting the urban waste water in the Gibraltar agglomeration to any treatment, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of, and Section B of Annex I to, Directive 91/271;










3.


Declares that, by not ensuring that urban waste water entering collecting systems from the Tiverton, Durham (Barkers Haugh), Chester-le-Street, Islip, Broughton Astley, Chilton, Witham and Chelmsford agglomerations, before discharge into sensitive areas, be subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4 of Directive 91/271, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of, and Section B of Annex I to, that directive;










4.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










5.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.
Case C-233/17 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2017 by GX against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16: GX v European Commission
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, building industry, building safety, competition (EU), damages, foreign language








C_2017221EN.01001201.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/12





Appeal brought on 4 May 2017 by GX against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16: GX v European Commission
(Case C-233/17 P)
(2017/C 221/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: GX (represented by: G.-M. Enache, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision of the appointing authority;










—


pay compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered on account of that decision;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By his appeal, the appellant requests the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of 3 March 2017 in Case T-556/16, GX v Commission, by which his action for annulment of the decision of the selection board of open competition EPSO/AD/248/13 not to include his name on the reserve list of successful candidates in that competition, was dismissed.
In support of the appeal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law:






1.


The illegality of the notice of competition, of the corrigendum, and of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles
The appellant considers that the competition notice is unlawful insofar as it does not provide an objective justification either as regards the limitation of the choice of second language (German, English or French) in the light of the interest of the service or as regards the proportionality of that limitation with regard to the real needs of the service.
Secondly, the appellant claims the illegality, lack of validity and of scientific foundation of the Assessment Centre fundamental principles governing EPSO open competitions as there is no support, evidence, or verification of the fundamental practices used at EPSO based on the following principles: (i) ‘past behavior is the best predictor of future performance’, (ii) ‘assessment centers, simulating real-life working situations, are the best predictor of real-life performance’.
Thirdly, the appellant claims the illegality of a corrigendum published in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.










2.


Procedural irregularities at the Assessment Centre.
The appellant raises a certain number of alleged procedural irregularities at the assessment center in competition EPSO/AD/248/13.
Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA) (Plant variety rights — Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA — Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 — Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO — Principle of impartiality)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: floriculture, industrial property, plant propagation, plant variety right








C_2017202EN.01001601.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/16





Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (SEIMORA)
(Joined Cases T-425/15, T-426/15 and T-428/15) (1)

((Plant variety rights - Application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA - Application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02 - Composition of the Board of Appeal of CPVO - Principle of impartiality))
(2017/C 202/28)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and F. Mattina, acting as Agents, and A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CVPO, intervener before the General Court: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Re:

In Case T-425/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 003/2010) concerning an application for revocation of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; in Case T-426/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 002/2014) concerning an application for a declaration of invalidity of the Community protection of the plant variety rights granted to the variety SEIMORA; and, in Case T-428/15, action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of CVPO of 24 February 2015 (Case A 007/2009) concerning an application for Community protection of plant variety rights for the variety SUMOST 02.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the actions;










2.


Orders Mr Ralf Schräder to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.
Case C-417/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Figurative mark — Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging — Distinctive character)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01001402.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/14





Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-417/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Figurative mark - Representation of a white and blue square-shaped packaging - Distinctive character))
(2017/C 213/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr and P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders August Storck KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.
Case T-97/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark GEOTEK — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Evidence of genuine use of the mark — Delay — Rule 61(2) and (3) and Rule 65(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 — Notification by fax of the time limit given to the proprietor — Absence of circumstances capable of challenging the transmission report submitted by EUIPO — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 57 of Regulation No 2868/95 — Request for examination of witnesses — Discretion of EUIPO)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, scientific research, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2017195EN.01002302.xml










19.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/23





Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)
(Case T-97/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark GEOTEK - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 40(5) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Evidence of genuine use of the mark - Delay - Rule 61(2) and (3) and Rule 65(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 - Notification by fax of the time limit given to the proprietor - Absence of circumstances capable of challenging the transmission report submitted by EUIPO - Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 57 of Regulation No 2868/95 - Request for examination of witnesses - Discretion of EUIPO))
(2017/C 195/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Martin Kasztantowicz (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Ronneburger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and A. Söder, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Gbb Group Ltd (Letchworth, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2015 (Case R 3025/2014-5) concerning revocation proceedings between Gbb Group and Mr Kasztantowicz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Mr Martin Kasztantowicz to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.
Case C-234/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 May 2017 — XC and Others
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, fundamental rights, infringement of EU law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial review








C_2017239EN.01002701.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 4 May 2017 — XC and Others
(Case C-234/17)
(2017/C 239/33)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: XC, YB, ZA

Question referred

Is EU law, in particular Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness inferred from it, to be interpreted as requiring the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), upon application by the person concerned, to review a final decision delivered by a criminal court with respect to an alleged infringement of EU law (in this case, Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement), where national law (Paragraph 363a of the Strafprozeßordnung (Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure)) provides for such a review only with respect to an alleged violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or one of the protocols thereto?
Case C-699/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, catering industry, culture industry, education, educational institution, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2017213EN.01001001.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/10





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College
(Case C-699/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration))
(2017/C 213/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Defendant: Brockenhurst College

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that activities carried out in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from value added tax (VAT), provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.
Case C-17/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 — Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union — Article 3(1) — Natural person entering or leaving the European Union — Obligation to declare — International transit area of a Member State’s airport)
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, border control, customs inspection, external border of the EU, foreign national, natural person, paper money








C_2017213EN.01001102.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/11





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL v Administration des douanes et des droits indirects
(Case C-17/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 - Controls of cash entering or leaving the European Union - Article 3(1) - Natural person entering or leaving the European Union - Obligation to declare - International transit area of a Member State’s airport))
(2017/C 213/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Oussama El Dakkak, Intercontinental SARL

Defendant: Administration des douanes et des droits indirects

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community must be interpreted to the effect that the obligation to declare laid down in that provision is applicable in the international transit area of an airport of a Member State.


(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8399 — CWS-boco/Rentokil Initial Target Businesses) (Text with EEA relevance. )
Date: 2017-05-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cleaning industry, economic concentration, holding company, merger control, provision of services








C_2017139EN.01003101.xml










4.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/31





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.8399 — CWS-boco/Rentokil Initial Target Businesses)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2017/C 139/08)






1.


On 26 April 2017, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking CWS-boco International GmbH (‘CWS-boco’, Germany), a wholly owned subsidiary of Franz Haniel & Cie. GmbH (‘Haniel’, Germany), acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the textile, washroom, cleanroom and dust mats businesses of Rentokil Initial plc, (‘Rentokil Initial’, United Kingdom) in a number of EU Member States (‘Rentokil Initial’s Target businesses’) by way of a purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for CWS-boco: provision of textile, cleanroom, washroom and dust mats services, mainly in the EU. Haniel is a diversified German holding company.
—   for Rentokil Initial’s Target businesses: provision of textile, cleanroom, washroom and dust mats services in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and Switzerland.










3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number M.8399 — CWS-boco/Rentokil Initial Target Businesses, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).