do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-403/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (VIENNA HOUSE)
Date: 2017-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, camping, hotel industry, registered trade mark, sports facilities, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2017277EN.01005101.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/51





Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Vienna International Hotelmanagement v EUIPO (VIENNA HOUSE)
(Case T-403/17)
(2017/C 277/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vienna International Hotelmanagement AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M. Zrzavy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements in red ‘VIENNA HOUSE’ — application No 14 501 308

Contested decision: decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 332/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-400/17: Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission
Date: 2017-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carcinogenic substance, classification, labelling, ownership, packaging, principle of legal certainty, public health








C_2017293EN.01003701.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/37





Action brought on 27 June 2017 — Deza v Commission
(Case T-400/17)
(2017/C 293/46)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul in part Commission Regulation (EU) No 2017/776 of 4 May 2017 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 (‘the CLP Regulation’), in so far as it classifies and labels the substance anthraquinone, by inserting the following entry in Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex VI to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council: Index number 606-151-00-4; International Chemical Identification: anthraquinone; EC No: 201-549-0; CAS No: 84-65-1; Hazard Class and Category Code: Carc. IB; Hazard Statement Code: H350; Pictogram, Signal Word Code: GHS08 Dgr; Hazard Statement Code: H350;










—


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 unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation






—


That classification and labelling are not based on sufficient evidence obtained from reliable and acceptable studies demonstrating a causal relationship between the substance anthraquinone as such and an increased incidence of tumours in experimental animals within the meaning of points 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights and of principles enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union






—


As a consequence of the unlawful and manifestly incorrect classification and labelling of the substance anthraquinone as a Category 1B carcinogenic substance in accordance with Table 3 of Part 3 of Annex I to the CLP Regulation, there was a breach in particular of the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its property and the principle of legal certainty.
Case C-386/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu
Date: 2017-06-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, public order








C_2017338EN.01000301.xml










9.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 338/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 27 June 2017 — Stefano Liberato v Luminita Luisa Grigorescu
(Case C-386/17)
(2017/C 338/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Stefano Liberato

Respondent: Luminita Luisa Grigorescu

Questions referred







1.


Does an infringement of the rules on lis pendens contained in Article 19(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (1) affect only the determination of jurisdiction, with the consequent application of Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 or, on the contrary, may it constitute a ground for withholding recognition, in the Member State whose court has been seised first, of a judicial ruling made in the Member State whose court has been seised at a later stage, in the light of procedural public policy, having regard to the fact that Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 refers only to the rules determining jurisdiction contained in Articles 3 to 14 of that regulation and not to the subsequent Article 19 thereof?










2.


Does the interpretation of Article 19 of Regulation No 2201/2003, seen only as a test for the conferral of jurisdiction, conflict with the EU-law concept of lis pendens and with the function and purpose of that provision, which is intended to lay down a set of binding rules, reflecting procedural public policy, thereby guaranteeing the creation of a common area characterised by reciprocal procedural trust and fairness between the Member States, within which the automatic recognition and free movement of judicial decisions may operate?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).
Case T-89/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Clarke and Others v EUIPO (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition — Implementation of the termination clause — Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration — Duty of care — Legitimate expectation)
Date: 2017-06-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2017256EN.01002202.xml










7.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/22





Judgment of the General Court of 27 June 2017 — Clarke and Others v EUIPO
(Case T-89/16 P) (1)

((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of the next open competition - Implementation of the termination clause - Reclassification of a fixed-term contract as a contract of indefinite duration - Duty of care - Legitimate expectation))
(2017/C 256/24)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellants: Nicole Clarke (Alicante, Spain), Sigrid Dickmanns, (Gran Alacant, Spain) and Elisavet Papathanasiou (Alicante) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015, Clarke and Others v OHIM (F-101/14 to F-103/14, EU:F:2015:151) and asking that that judgment be set aside.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the appeal;










2)


Orders Nicole Clarke, Sigrid Dickmanns and Elisavet Papathanasiou to bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the present appeal.






(1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.