do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-877/16: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Verschuur v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Document concerning the administrative procedure relating to State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) granted by the Netherlands to Starbucks — Refusal to grant access — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, disclosure of information, provision of documents, restriction on competition








C_2017249EN.01002901.xml










31.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 249/29






Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Verschuur v Commission
(Case T-877/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Document concerning the administrative procedure relating to State aid SA.38374 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) granted by the Netherlands to Starbucks - Refusal to grant access - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2017/C 249/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Steven Verschuur (Baarn, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, A. Buchet and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6455 final of 3 October 2016, rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Steven Verschuur shall bear his own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 53, 20.2.2017
Case T-410/16: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Makhlouf v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Right to protection of reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union — Proportionality)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2017221EN.01002302.xml










10.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/23





Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-410/16) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Right to protection of reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Restrictions on entry into and transit through the territory of the European Union - Proportionality))
(2017/C 221/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially, S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, then by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Havas and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016 L 141, p. 125) and of the subsequent measures giving effect to that decision, in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Rami Makhlouf to bear his own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case C-280/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ralph Eßer 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.01003701.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/37





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ralph Eßer v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-280/17)
(2017/C 239/46)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ralph Eßer

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-282/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Werner Ansorge 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.01003801.xml










24.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 239/38





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Werner Ansorge v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-282/17)
(2017/C 239/48)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Werner Ansorge

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-277/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht 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.01003402.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 — Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-277/17)
(2017/C 239/43)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Heinz-Gerhard Albrecht

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-126/17: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Consorzio IB Innovation v Commission
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, aid recipient, audit, auditing, consortium, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2017231EN.01005403.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-126/17) (1)

(2017/C 231/72)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Case T-307/17: Action brought on 18 May 2017 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)
Date: 2017-05-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017231EN.01004801.xml










17.7.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/48





Action brought on 18 May 2017 — adidas v EUIPO — Shoe Branding Europe (Representation of three parallel stripes)
(Case T-307/17)
(2017/C 231/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: adidas AG (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: I. Fowler and I. Junkar, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shoe Branding Europe BVBA (Oudenaarde, Belgium)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of three parallel stripes) — EU trade mark No 12 442 166

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2017 in Case R 1515/2016-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as intervener, to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(2) read in conjunction with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.