do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-303/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004601.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/46





Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (4000)
(Case T-303/17)
(2017/C 231/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘4000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 548

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 654/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Case C-269/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, consumer protection, indemnification, traveller








C_2017318EN.01000301.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Andreas Niemeyer v Brussels Airlines SA/NV
(Case C-269/17)
(2017/C 318/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Andreas Niemeyer

Defendant: Brussels Airlines SA/NV

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) (‘the Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘distance’ relates only to the direct distance calculated between the point of departure and the last destination on the basis of the ‘great circle’ method, regardless of the distance actually flown?


(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 T-84/17: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: audit, auditing, consortium, official language, right to justice








C_2017231EN.01005401.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/54





Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
(Case T-84/17) (1)

(2017/C 231/70)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case C-274/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Margarethe Yüce, Ali Yüce, Emin Yüce, Emre Yüce v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01003201.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/32





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Margarethe Yüce, Ali Yüce, Emin Yüce, Emre Yüce v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-274/17)
(2017/C 239/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Margarethe Yüce, Ali Yüce, Emin Yüce, Emre Yüce

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-275/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01003301.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/33





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-275/17)
(2017/C 239/41)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Friedemann Schoen, Brigitta Schoen

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 T-302/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004502.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/45





Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (6000)
(Case T-302/17)
(2017/C 231/57)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘6000’ — EU trade mark No 13 112 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 656/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Case T-304/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, paints and varnishes, pneumatic machinery, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004701.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/47





Action brought on 18 May 2017 — Sata v EUIPO — Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools (5000)
(Case T-304/17)
(2017/C 231/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Sata GmbH & Co. KG (Kornwestheim, Germany) (represented by: M.-C. Simon, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zhejiang Rongpeng Air Tools Co. Ltd (Pengjie Town, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: The sign ‘5000’ — EU trade mark No 12 333 555

Procedure before EUIPO: Invalidity proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2017 in Case R 655/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs;










—


in the event that the respondent before the Board of Appeal decides to intervene in the proceedings, order that intervener to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration.
Case C-286/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Gabriele Ossenbeck v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017283EN.01002101.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/21





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Gabriele Ossenbeck v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-286/17)
(2017/C 283/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gabriele Ossenbeck

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-276/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Michael Siegberg v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, incapacity for work, indemnification, sick leave, strike, transport regulations








C_2017239EN.01003401.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/34





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Michael Siegberg v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-276/17)
(2017/C 239/42)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michael Siegberg

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 T-138/08: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, eligibility criteria, equal treatment, financial loss, fishing fleet, fishing regulations, indemnification, right of establishment








C_2017249EN.01004901.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/49






Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Cavankee Fishing and Others v Commission
(Case T-138/08) (1)

(2017/C 249/66)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  
            OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
Case C-272/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, family benefit, free movement of workers, social security legislation, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation, worker (EU)








C_2017277EN.01002501.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/25





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — K.M. Zyla v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-272/17)
(2017/C 277/36)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: K.M. Zyla

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a worker who, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71 (1) or Regulation No 883/2004, (2) is insured under the social security system of the Member State concerned for part of a calendar year, and who, when the contributions for that insurance are levied, is entitled to only a portion of the contributions component of the general tax credit which is determined on a time-proportionate basis in relation to the period of insurance, if that worker, for the remainder of the calendar year, was not insured under the social security system of that Member State, and was resident in another Member State for the remainder of the calendar year and earned (virtually) his entire annual income in the first-mentioned Member State?


(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/854 of 18 May 2017 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Darnibole’ (PDO)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: South West (England), United Kingdom, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, white wine








L_2017128EN.01000901.xml










19.5.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 128/9








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/854
of 18 May 2017
         
conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Darnibole’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


In accordance with Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the United Kingdom's application to register the name ‘Darnibole’ was examined by the Commission and subsequently published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Darnibole’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of the Regulation.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Darnibole’ (PDO) is hereby protected.


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, 18 May 2017.


For the Commission


The President

Jean-Claude JUNCKER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 457, 8.12.2016, p. 3.