do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-492/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Fleig v EEAS
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, dismissal, full-time employment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2017318EN.01002002.xml










25.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/20





Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Fleig v EEAS
(Case T-492/17)
(2017/C 318/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stephan Fleig (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 19 September 2016 by which the Director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the European External Action Service (EEAS), acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, decided to terminate the applicant’s employment contract of indefinite duration with effect from 19 June 2017 (in the version of that decision to terminate most recently received through the rejection of the applicant’s complaint on 19 April 2017);










—


order the EEAS to pay to the applicant a reasonable sum, of an amount to be decided by the Court, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him; and










—


order the EEAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: manifest errors of assessment on the part of the European External Action Service (EEAS).










2.


Second plea in law: infringement by the EEAS of the duty of care, of the principle of good administration (Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), of the principle of proportionality and of the right to protection against unjustified dismissal (Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).










3.


Third plea in law: infringement of the right to be heard under Article 41(1) and 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case C-460/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, invoicing, provision of services, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017347EN.01001301.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 —Valériane SNC v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques
(Case C-460/17)
(2017/C 347/16)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Valériane SNC

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publiques

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1447 of 31 July 2017 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone Interdonato Messina (PGI))
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, citrus fruit, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2017208EN.01000101.xml










11.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 208/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2017/1447
of 31 July 2017
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone Interdonato Messina (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 the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Italy's application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Limone Interdonato Messina’, registered under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/2009 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Limone Interdonato Messina’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


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, 31 July 2017.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Julian KING
            

Member of the Commission






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

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/2009 of 11 November 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Limone Interdonato Messina (PGI)) (OJ L 295, 12.11.2009, p. 3).

(3)  
            OJ C 96, 28.3.2017, p. 7.
Case C-455/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Benedikt Brisch v TUIfly GmbH
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification








C_2018022EN.01001602.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Benedikt Brisch v TUIfly GmbH
(Case C-455/17)
(2018/C 022/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Benedikt Brisch

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
By order of 21 September 2017 the case was removed from the register of the Court of Justice.
Case T-472/17: Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, help desk, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2017330EN.01001201.xml










2.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 330/12





Action brought on 31 July 2017 — Wilhelm Sihn jr. v EUIPO — in-edit (Camele’on)
(Case T-472/17)
(2017/C 330/15)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG (Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany) (represented by: H. Twelmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: in-edit Sàrl (Mondorf-les-Bains, Luxembourg)

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 ‘Camele’on’ — Application for registration No 13 317 714

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2017 in Case R 570/2016-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wilhelm Sihn jr. GmbH & Co. KG;










—


order in-edit S.à.r.l. to bear its own costs in case of an intervention.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-459/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 — SGI v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, invoicing, provision of services, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2017347EN.01001202.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 31 July 2017 — SGI v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics
(Case C-459/17)
(2017/C 347/15)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SGI

Respondent: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes Publics

Question referred

Must the provisions of Article 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive of 17 May 1977, (1) which have, in essence, been reproduced in Article 168 of Directive [2006/112/EC] of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse a taxable person the right to deduct, from the value added tax that he is liable to pay by reason of his own transactions, tax levied on invoices corresponding to goods or services that the tax authorities establish have not actually been supplied to the taxable person, it is necessary, in all cases, to examine whether it has been established that that taxable person knew, or ought to have known, that the transaction was connected with value-added-tax fraud, regardless of whether that fraud was committed on the initiative of the issuer of the invoice, its recipient or a third party?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-457/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Heiko Jonny Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, education grant, equal treatment, equivalence of diplomas, ethnic discrimination








C_2017347EN.01001201.xml










16.10.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/12





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Heiko Jonny Maniero v Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV
(Case C-457/17)
(2017/C 347/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Heiko Jonny Maniero

Respondent: Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes eV

Questions referred







1.


Is the award by a registered association of scholarships intended to promote projects for research and studies abroad covered by the concept of ‘education’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 2000/43/EC? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
In the case of the award of scholarships referred to in Question 1, does the participation requirement relating to the passing of the First State Law Examination in Germany constitute indirect discrimination against an applicant within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/43/EC where the applicant, who is a Union citizen, has indeed acquired a comparable qualification in a State which does not belong to the European Union, without the choice of this place of qualification being related to the ethnic origin of the applicant, but, on account of his residence in national territory and fluent command of German, had, in the same way as a national, the possibility of taking the First State Law Examination after studying law in national territory?
Is any difference made by the fact that the objective pursued by the scholarship programme is, without being linked to any discriminatory characteristics, to provide law graduates in Germany with knowledge of foreign legal systems, experience of being abroad and knowledge of languages by promoting a project for research and studies abroad?






(1)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.
Case C-456/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Gabriela Verena Glanzmann, Sara Glanzmann, Loris Glanzmann v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2017-07-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification








C_2018022EN.01001603.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/16





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2017 — Gabriela Verena Glanzmann, Sara Glanzmann, Loris Glanzmann v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-456/17)
(2018/C 022/22)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Gabriela Verena Glanzmann, Sara Glanzmann, Loris Glanzmann

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG
By order of 6 October 2017, the case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice.