do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-415/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, auditing, consolidated account, financial control, infringement procedure (EU), management audit, national implementing measure








C_2017277EN.01002802.xml










21.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/28





Action brought on 10 July 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
(Case C-415/17)
(2017/C 277/42)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, M. Mataija and G. von Rintelen, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts (OJ 2014 L 158, p. 196), by failing to take the necessary measures, by 17 June 2016, in order to comply with that directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission;










—


impose on the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a daily penalty payment of EUR 9 275,20, with effect from the day on which judgment is given that there has been a failure to comply with the obligation to notify the measures for transposing Directive 2014/59/EU;










—


order the Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligation to inform the Commission of the measures for transposing Directive 2014/56/EU within the time limit laid down in Article 2 of that directive.
Case T-471/12: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, damages, debt, financial aid, payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2017283EN.01005501.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/55





Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
(Case T-471/12) (1)

(2017/C 283/85)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.
Case T-649/14: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO — Schütz (X-Windwerk) (EU trade mark — Appointment of a new representative — Failure to act on the part of the applicant — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wind energy








C_2017283EN.01004702.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/47





Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme v EUIPO — Schütz (X-Windwerk)
(Case T-649/14) (1)

((EU trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Failure to act on the part of the applicant - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 283/73)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Mach and W. Plewinski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA (Selters, Germany) (represented by: D. Oerter and E. Tuchscherer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2014 (Case R 978/2013-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Schütz and NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.










2.


NTS Energie- und Transportsysteme GmbH shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Schütz GmbH & Co. KGaA.






(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.
Case T-43/17: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark NO LIMITS — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, cultural event, education, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, precious metal, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2017283EN.01005101.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/51





Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — No Limits v EUIPO — Morellato (NO LIMITS)
(Case T-43/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark NO LIMITS - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
(2017/C 283/79)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: No Limits International Investments SA (Bissone, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Canu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Morellato SpA (Fratte di Santa Giustina in Colle, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2016 (Case R 2007/2015-5) relating to invalidity proceedings between Morellato and No Limits Investments.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by No Limits International Investments SA.






(1)  OJ C 95, 27.3.2017.
Case C-497/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier minister, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: animal product, animal welfare, consumer information, freedom of religious beliefs, labelling, organic farming, organic product, product designation, quality control of agricultural products, slaughter of animals








C_2017347EN.01002001.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier minister, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)
(Case C-497/17)
(2017/C 347/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA)

Respondents: Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier ministre, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

Question referred

Must the applicable rules of European Union law, deriving from, inter alia:






—


Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007, (1) the detailed rules for the implementation of which are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008, (2) and










—


Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 (3)





be interpreted as permitting or prohibiting approval of the use of the European label ‘organic farming’ in relation to products derived from animals which have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned, where such slaughter is conducted in accordance with the requirements laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).
Case C-413/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’ v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, medical centre, medical device, supplies contract, tendering








C_2017309EN.01002902.xml










18.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 309/29





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’ v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika
(Case C-413/17)
(2017/C 309/39)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’

Other party: VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

Question referred

Should the provisions of Articles 2 and 23 of, and of Annex VI to, Directive 2004/18 (1) (whether together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions), be interpreted and understood as meaning that, in the case where a contracting authority — a human health care institution — intends to acquire supplies (medical diagnostic equipment and materials) or specific rights thereto by way of a public procurement procedure in order to be able to carry out tests by itself, its discretion includes the right to lay down in the technical specifications only such requirements for those supplies as do not describe in isolation the individual operational (technical) and use-related (functional) characteristics of the equipment and/or materials but instead define the qualitative parameters of the tests to be carried out as well as the performance of the testing laboratory, the content of which must be separately described in the specifications of the public procurement procedure in question?


(1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).
Case C-418/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Andreas Fabri, Elisabeth Mathes v Sun Express Deutschland GmbH
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2017347EN.01000701.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Andreas Fabri, Elisabeth Mathes v Sun Express Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-418/17)
(2017/C 347/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Andreas Fabri, Elisabeth Mathes

Defendant: Sun Express Deutschland GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a change in reservation to another flight constitute a situation covered by Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:










2.


Must that provision also be applied to a change in reservation which was not instigated by the air carrier, but by the tour operator alone?






(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-422/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, Lithuania, competition (EU), information profession, legal profession, professional qualifications








C_2017293EN.01003802.xml










4.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 293/38





Action brought on 10 July 2017 — UF v EPSO
(Case T-422/17)
(2017/C 293/48)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: UF (represented by: L. Gudaitė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 4 April 2017 to eliminate the applicant from the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition EPSO/AD/335/16;










—


oblige the defendant to allow the applicant to correct a clear error, by altering the level of knowledge of the Polish language from B1 to C1;










—


restore the applicant to the Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist competition.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


The basis of the first plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s legitimate expectations and misled him when it confirmed that his application to participate in the competition met all the requirements.






—


The applicant states that the defendant, having confirmed on 9 January 2017 that his application met all the requirements of the competition notice and having allowed him to participate in the computer-based tests, misled him and did not grant him the opportunity of correcting a clear clerical error relating to the level of knowledge of the Polish language and on account of which he was later eliminated from the competition.














2.


The basis of the second plea in law is that the defendant infringed the applicant’s rights and legitimate expectations when it eliminated him from the competition for Lithuanian-language lawyer-linguist posts.






—


The applicant maintains that, by the decision of 4 April 2017, the defendant, in taking account of the level of knowledge of the Polish language specified in the application, eliminated him from the competition unjustifiably, because the defendant is aware of his actual level of knowledge of the Polish language on the basis of the information provided in the application for another competition (EPSO/AD/328/16) and of the results of that competition. The applicant states that, according to the case-law of the General Court, the selection board is responsible for duly assessing the diplomas or degrees submitted or the professional competence presented by each candidate, and its decision to eliminate a candidate from a competition is considered to be an act adversely affecting a person, as envisaged in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Joined Cases T-34/13 and T-35/13: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, competitiveness, damages, financial aid, innovation, payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2017283EN.01005502.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/55





Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
(Joined Cases T-34/13 and T-35/13) (1)

(2017/C 283/86)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.
Case T-424/17: Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017318EN.01001401.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/14





Action brought on 10 July 2017 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
(Case T-424/17)
(2017/C 318/19)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘FRUIT’ — EU trade mark No 5 077 508

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 2119/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-414/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Arex CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, carriage of goods, excise duty, provision of services, tax exemption, taxpayer








C_2017300EN.01002401.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/24





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Arex CZ a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-414/17)
(2017/C 300/28)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant (applicant at first instance): Arex CZ a.s.

Other party (defendant at first instance): Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Questions referred







1.


Must any taxable person be regarded as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 138(2)(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’)? If not, to which taxable persons does that provision apply?










2.


If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive applies to a situation such as that in the main proceedings (that is, the acquirer of the products is a taxable person registered for tax), must that provision be interpreted as meaning that, where the dispatch or transport of those products takes place in accordance with the relevant provisions of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (2) concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (3) (‘the Excise Duty Directive’), a supply connected with a procedure under the Excise Duty Directive must be regarded as a supply entitled to exemption under that provision, even though the conditions for exemption under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive are not otherwise satisfied, having regard to the assignment of the transport of goods to another transaction?










3.


If the Court of Justice’s answer is that Article 138(2)(b) of the VAT Directive does not apply to a situation such as that in the main proceedings, is the fact that the goods are transported under an excise duty suspension arrangement decisive for deciding the question of which of several successive supplies the transport is to be ascribed to for the purposes of the right to exemption from VAT under Article 138(1) of the VAT Directive?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

(3)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.
Case T-696/13: Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
Date: 2017-07-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, competitiveness, damages, financial aid, innovation, payment, reimbursement of aid








C_2017283EN.01005503.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/55





Order of the General Court of 10 July 2017 — Meta Group v Commission
(Case T-696/13) (1)

(2017/C 283/87)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.