do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-754/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission (Law governing the institutions — European citizens’ initiative — Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership — Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement — Manifest lack of powers of the Commission — Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties — Article 11(4) TEU — Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 — Equal treatment)
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU initiative, European citizenship, economic agreement, equal treatment, international negotiations, power of initiative, trade agreement








C_2017202EN.01001501.xml










26.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/15





Judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2017 –Efler and Others v Commission
(Case T-754/14) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European citizens’ initiative - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - Manifest lack of powers of the Commission - Proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties - Article 11(4) TEU - Article 2(1) and Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 - Equal treatment))
(2017/C 202/26)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Michael Efler (Berlin, Germany) and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex (represented by: B. Kempen, professor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Laitenberger and H. Krämer, subsequently by H. Krämer and finally by H. Krämer and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposal for a citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2014) 6501 final of 10 September 2014 rejecting the request for registration of the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Stop TTIP’;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Michael Efler and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.
Case T-278/17: Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, financial services, investment transaction, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017213EN.01003601.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/36





Action brought on 10 may 2017 — Bank of New York Mellon v EUIPO — Nixen Partners (NEXEN)
(Case T-278/17)
(2017/C 213/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: The Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Schlüter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nixen Partners (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NEXEN’ — Application for registration No 13 374 152

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2017 in Case R 1570/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision of February 23, 2017 in case R 1570/2016-2 and reject the opposition;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings as well as of the proceeding in front of the Board of Appeal and at the Opposition Division, including all necessary expenses of the Applicant in these proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-275/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, fundamental rights, indemnification, legal aid, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017239EN.01004901.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/49





Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Michela Curto v Parliament
(Case T-275/17)
(2017/C 239/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Michela Curto (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision of 30 June 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance, and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to award the applicant an amount of EUR 10 000, or any other amount which the Court will deem appropriate, as compensation for the non-material harm suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment






—


The applicant maintains that the defendant erred in holding that the disputed conduct was not improper and further erred in finding that it did not have the effect of undermining the applicant’s personality, dignity or physical or psychological integrity.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging the breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the duty to provide assistance






—


The applicant argues, inter alia, that the defendant failed to deal with the request for assistance seriously and expeditiously, as prescribed by the applicable case-law.
Case C-243/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, infringement of EU law, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2017256EN.01000601.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/6





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2017 — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v António da Silva Rodrigues
(Case C-243/17)
(2017/C 256/04)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP

Defendant: António da Silva Rodrigues

Questions referred







1.


What is the date from which the limitation period of four years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) (1) [of Regulation No 2988/95] starts to run for instantaneous infringements (not continuous or repeated)?










2.


In the case of an infringement that is not continuous or repeated, are the rules applicable according to which ‘in the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’?










3.


Does the rule laid down in Article 3, according to which the ‘limitation shall become effective at the latest on the day on which a period equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty’ also apply in the case of a multiannual programme, that is to say, does the period referred to here also run until the termination of the multiannual programme?










4.


Which of the following is the meaning of the expression ‘In the case of multiannual programmes, the limitation period shall in any case run until the programme is definitively terminated’:






(a)


the limitation period never expires before the definitive termination of a multiannual programme?










(b)


the limitation period is suspended as long as the programme lasts, that is, until its definitive termination, and starts running again as of that moment?










(c)


the limitation period continues to run and, therefore, even if the programme in question is multiannual, proceedings may be time-barred before the definitive termination of the programme if, in the meantime, that period has expired?










(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests — OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.
Case C-240/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 May 2017 — E
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, foreign national, public safety, removal, residence permit, return migration








C_2017213EN.01002302.xml










3.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 10 May 2017 — E
(Case C-240/17)
(2017/C 213/31)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E

Other parties to the proceedings: Maahanmuuttovirasto

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 25(2) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to consult among Contracting States has legal effects that can be relied on by third-country national in a situation in which a Contracting State imposes an entry ban for the entire Schengen Area and order his return to his home country on the ground that he constitutes a threat to public order and public safety?










2.


If Article 25(2) of Convention applies to the imposition of an entry ban, must the consultations begin before the imposition of the entry ban or may the consultation start only after the imposition of the ban when the decision to deport that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken?










3.


If the consultations may begin only afterwards, when the decision to return that person and to impose an entry ban has been taken, does the fact that negotiations between Contracting States are on-going and that the other Contracting State has not indicated its intention to withdraw the residence permit of the third-country national prevent the decision to deport the third country national and the imposition of an entry ban with respect to the entire Schengen Area from taking effect?










4.


How is a Contracting State to proceed in circumstances in which the Contracting State which granted the residence permit, despite repeated requests, has not expressed its views regarding the withdrawal of the residence permit granted to a third country national?
Case T-274/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal coating, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017221EN.01003601.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/36





Action brought on 10 May 2017 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)
(Case T-274/17)
(2017/C 221/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘MONSTER DIP’ — Application for registration No 13 118 211

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2017 in Case R 1062/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 April 2016 in opposition B 2433681;










—


reject the opposed mark for all goods and services;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-690/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai — France) — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Officials of the European Union — Staff Regulations — Compulsory affiliation to the social security scheme of the EU institutions — Real estate income received in a Member State — Liability to pay General Social Contribution, social levy and additional contributions under the law of a Member State — Participating in the funding of the social security scheme of that Member State)
Date: 2017-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, free movement of workers, income, property leasing, social-security contribution, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017239EN.01000901.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/9





Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai — France) — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
(Case C-690/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Officials of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Compulsory affiliation to the social security scheme of the EU institutions - Real estate income received in a Member State - Liability to pay General Social Contribution, social levy and additional contributions under the law of a Member State - Participating in the funding of the social security scheme of that Member State))
(2017/C 239/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Douai

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wenceslas de Lobkowicz

Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the joint social security scheme of the EU institutions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that income from real estate received in a Member State by an official of the European Union who has his or her domicile for tax purposes in that Member State is subject to contributions and social levies that are allocated for the funding of the social security scheme of that same Member State.


(1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.