do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-255/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2017283EN.01001601.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA
(Case C-255/17)
(2017/C 283/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll

Defendant: Société Air France SA

Question referred

In circumstances where a contract has been entered into with an operating air carrier for a journey comprising two legs, and providing for a change of aircraft by the passenger, and the first leg of the journey is subject to a significant delay, do the courts of the place of final destination have jurisdiction in respect of a claim for compensation brought against that air carrier pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-253/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2017300EN.01001301.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
(Case C-253/17)
(2017/C 300/16)
Language of the case: Germany

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ramazan Dündar, Carolin Wenzel, Antonia Genovese, Jan-Maximilian Mügge

Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
By order of 20 June 2017, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union removed the case from the Court’s Register.
Case T-283/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — SH v Commission
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, children's rights, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family benefit, legitimacy, principle of proportionality, right to education, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2017231EN.01003502.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/35





Action brought on 15 May 2017 — SH v Commission
(Case T-283/17)
(2017/C 231/44)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: SH (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

Declare the application admissible and well-founded,
In consequence:






—


Hold that the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;










—


Annul the decision of 13 July 2016 of the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (‘the PMO’) and insofar as necessary, the decision expressly rejecting the claim of 3 February 2017;










—


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, a plea of illegality raised against the decision of 13 July 2016, since it is based on the application of the third subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations which infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality and/or birth, the principle of equal treatment, the right to education, the protection of children’s interests, the principle of proportionality and of legitimacy of any derogation from the rights enshrined in the Charter.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principle of sound administration, in that the decision of 13 July 2016 is based on an unlawful provision of the Staff Regulations.
Case T-288/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic game, electronic equipment, recording equipment, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01003901.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/39





Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Sky v EUIPO — Parrot Drones (Parrot SKYCONTROLLER)
(Case T-288/17)
(2017/C 231/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Parrot Drones (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Parrot SKYCONTROLLER’ — Application for registration No 13 107 842

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 457/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Articles 8(1) (b) and 8 (5) Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-310/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004901.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/49





Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Lion’s Head Global Partners v EUIPO — Lion Capital (LION’S HEAD global partners)
(Case T-310/17)
(2017/C 231/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Nöske, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lion Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark including the word elements ‘LION’S HEAD global partners’ — International registration No 996 979

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2017 in Case R 1477/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 28 February 2017 (Case R 1477/2016-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Lion’s Head Global Partners LLP and Lion Capital LLP and reject the opposition;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-296/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Representation of flushing systems for water closets)
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, polishing and scouring preparations








C_2017239EN.01005101.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/51





Action brought on 15 May 2017 — Buck-Chemie v EUIPO — Henkel (Representation of flushing systems for water closets)
(Case T-296/17)
(2017/C 239/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Buck-Chemie GmbH (Herrenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schultze, J. Ossing, R.-D. Härer, C. Weber, H. Ranzinger, C. Brockmann and C. Gehweiler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1663618-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 2113/2015-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Court and before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 62 and Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 5 and Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
Case T-297/17: Action brought on 15 May 2017 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, hand tool, machine tool, machine-tool industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2017231EN.01004301.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/43





Action brought on 15 May 2017 — VSM v EUIPO (WE KNOW ABRASIVES)
(Case T-297/17)
(2017/C 231/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VSM . Vereinigte Schmirgel- und Maschinen-Fabriken AG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: M. Horak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘WE KNOW ABRASIVES’ — Application for registration No 15 063 522

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 March 2017 in Case R 1595/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Breach of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Breach of Article 63(1), in conjunction with Articles 58 and 59, of Regulation No 207/2009, breach of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, and thus infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/870 of 15 May 2017 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Kopi Arabika Gayo (PGI))
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Sumatra, coffee, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2017134EN.01000201.xml










23.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 134/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/870
of 15 May 2017
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Kopi Arabika Gayo (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Indonesia's application to register the name ‘Kopi Arabika Gayo’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Kopi Arabika Gayo’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Kopi Arabika Gayo’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.8. Other products listed in Annex I to the Treaty (spices etc.), as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 May 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Phil HOGAN
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 403, 1.11.2016, p. 5.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-258/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2017 — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, civil servant, disciplinary proceedings, equal treatment, pension scheme, termination of employment








C_2017283EN.01001602.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 15 May 2017 — E.B. v Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA
(Case C-258/17)
(2017/C 283/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: E.B.

Respondent body: Versicherungsanstalt öffentlich Bediensteter BVA

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 2 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) (‘the Directive’) preclude the maintenance in being of the new legal position created by an administrative decision that has become final under national law, in the area of law governing disciplinary action in the civil service (disciplinary decision), compulsorily retiring and reducing the pension benefits of a civil servant, where
that administrative decision was not yet subject to provisions of EU law, in particular the Directive, at the time when it was adopted, but
a (notional) decision to the same effect would infringe the Directive if it were adopted within the temporal scope of the Directive?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is it, for the purposes of creating a non-discriminatory situation,






(a)


necessary under EU law, for the purposes of determining the civil servant’s pension, to treat him as if, in the period between the entry into force of the administrative decision and his reaching statutory pensionable age, he had not been retired but working, or is it










(b)


sufficient for these purposes to recognise as due the unreduced pension accruing in consequence of compulsory retirement at the time specified in the administrative decision?














3.


Does the answer to Question 2 depend on whether the civil servant did in fact proactively seek active employment in the federal civil service before reaching retirement age?










4.


If it is considered sufficient to annul the percentage reduction of pension entitlement (and depending also, if necessary, on the circumstances referred to in Question 3):
Can the principle of non-discrimination contained in the Directive support a primacy of application over conflicting national law which a national court must observe, when calculating pension entitlement, even in respect of periods before the Directive became directly applicable in national law?










5.


If Question 4 is answered in the affirmative, to which point in time does such ‘retroactive effect’ extend?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case C-257/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2017 — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family, family migration, foreign national, nationality, residence permit








C_2017269EN.01000202.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 15 May 2017 — C, A v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-257/17)
(2017/C 269/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: C, A

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred







1.


Having regard to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, [p. 12]) and to the Nolan judgment (C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the courts of the Netherlands concerning the interpretation of certain provisions of that directive in proceedings relating to the right of residence of members of the family of sponsors who have Netherlands nationality, if that directive has been declared to be directly and unconditionally applicable under Netherlands law to those family members?










2.


Should Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC … be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for an autonomous residence permit on the part of a foreign national who has resided lawfully for more than five years on the territory of a Member State for family-reunification purposes may be rejected because of non-compliance with conditions relating to integration laid down in national law?










3.


Should Article 15(1) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC … be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the basis of which an autonomous residence permit cannot be granted earlier than the date on which it is applied for?
Case C-254/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Regina Lorenz and Prisca Sprecher v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, transport regulations, traveller








C_2017221EN.01001701.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/17





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Regina Lorenz and Prisca Sprecher v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-254/17)
(2017/C 221/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Regina Lorenz, Prisca Sprecher

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?










3.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?










4.


In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Case C-261/17 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2017-05-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indemnification, jurisdiction








C_2017330EN.01000201.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/2





Appeal brought on 15 May 2017 by Ccc Event Management GmbH against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) made on 14 March 2017 in Case T-889/16, Ccc Event Management GmbH v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case C-261/17 P)
(2017/C 330/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Ccc Event Management GmbH (represented by: A. Schuster, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union
By order of 13 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.