do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-618/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Voigt v Parliament (Member of the European Parliament — Refusal to make Parliament premises available — Third-country nationals — Refusal of access to Parliament buildings — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Admissibility of a plea — Discrimination on grounds of political opinions)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, foreign national, freedom of movement, political discrimination, public building








C_2018013EN.01001301.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/13





Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Voigt v Parliament
(Case T-618/15) (1)

((Member of the European Parliament - Refusal to make Parliament premises available - Third-country nationals - Refusal of access to Parliament buildings - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Admissibility of a plea - Discrimination on grounds of political opinions))
(2018/C 013/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Udo Voigt (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz, S. Seyr and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, firstly, the Parliament’s decision of 9 June 2015 refusing to make a room available to the applicant for the purpose of holding a press conference on 16 June 2015 and, secondly, of the Parliament’s decision of 16 June 2015 refusing Russian nationals access to its premises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Udo Voigt to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.






(1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.
Case T-702/15: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — BikeWorld v Commission (Action for annulment — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, lawyer, sports facilities








C_2018032EN.01003102.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/31





Order of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — BikeWorld v Commission
(Case T-702/15) (1)

((Action for annulment - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 032/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: BikeWorld GmbH (Sankt Ingbert, Germany) (represented by: J. Jovy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/151 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.31550 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for Nürburgring (OJ 2016 L 34, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


BikeWorld GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case C-647/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, education, freedom to provide services, payable service, provision of services, tax collection, taxpayer, traineeship








C_2018052EN.01001902.xml










12.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Skatteverket v Srf konsulterna AB
(Case C-647/17)
(2018/C 052/27)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Srf konsulterna AB

Question referred

Must the expression ‘admission to events’ in Article 53 of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that it covers a service in the form of a five-day course on accountancy which is supplied solely to taxable persons and requires advance registration and payment?


(1)  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-648/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damage, motor vehicle insurance, third-party insurance








C_2018072EN.01002702.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/27





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia), lodged on 20 November 2017 — Balcia Insurance SE
(Case C-648/17)
(2018/C 072/36)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Balcia Insurance SE

Defendant: AS Baltijas Apdrošināšanas Nams

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (First Directive), to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, the opening of the doors of a stationary vehicle?










2


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ covers a situation such as that in the main proceedings, that is to say, a situation in which damage to the property of a third party is caused by use of the vehicle by a passenger?






(1)  English special edition: Series I Volume 1972(II) p. 360.
Case C-645/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, indemnification, transport accident, traveller








C_2018112EN.01000701.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/7





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 20 November 2017 — Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland v Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst
(Case C-645/17)
(2018/C 112/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Emirates Airlines — Direktion für Deutschland

Defendants: Aylin Wüst, Peter Wüst

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport due to an accident involving an aircraft on landing constitutes an extraordinary circumstance?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that the temporary closure of an airport constitutes an extraordinary circumstance even if the aircraft involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of the air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative:
Should Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of 11 February 2004 be interpreted as meaning that even in the case that the aircraft [Or. 3] involved in the accident belonged to the fleet of an air carrier which is relying on the occurrence of an extraordinary circumstance in relation to a flight which was delayed due to the closure of the airport, the delay in arrival of longer than three hours was ‘caused’ by that 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-403/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Urgo recherche innovation et développement (Immunostad) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Immunostad — Earlier national word mark ImmunoStim — Relative ground for refusal — Similarity of the trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Non-negligible part of the relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2018013EN.01001401.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/14





Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Urgo recherche innovation et développement (Immunostad)
(Case T-403/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Immunostad - Earlier national word mark ImmunoStim - Relative ground for refusal - Similarity of the trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Non-negligible part of the relevant public - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 013/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially, D. Botis and, subsequently, D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Urgo recherche innovation et développement, formerly Société de développement et de recherche industrielle, then Vivatech (Chenôve, France) (represented by: A. Sion and A. Delafond-Nielsen, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Case R 863/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vivatech and Stada Arzneimittel.

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.
Case T-760/17: Action brought on 20 November 2017 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, architecture, bolt and screw industry, building insulation, building materials, consultancy, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01005501.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/55





Action brought on 20 November 2017 — Meesenburg Großhandel v EUIPO (Triotherm+)
(Case T-760/17)
(2018/C 022/72)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Meesenburg Großhandel KG (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Freiherr von Oldershausen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Triotherm+’ — Application No 15 186 471

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 1786/2016-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Council Decision (EU) 2017/2182 of 20 November 2017 on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, agricultural product, agricultural trade, liberalisation of trade, signature of an agreement, tariff exemption, tariff quota








L_2017309EN.01000101.xml










24.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 309/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2017/2182
of 20 November 2017
         
on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(5) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 19 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’) provides that the Contracting Parties undertake to continue their efforts with a view to achieving progressive liberalisation of agricultural trade.












(2)


On 18 November 2014, the Council authorised the Commission to open negotiations with Norway with a view to achieving greater liberalisation of bilateral trade in agricultural products under Article 19 of the EEA Agreement. The negotiations were successfully concluded and an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products (‘the Agreement’) was initialled on 5 April 2017.












(3)


The Agreement should be signed on behalf of the Union, subject to its conclusion,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The signing on behalf of the Union of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Kingdom of Norway concerning additional trade preferences in agricultural products is hereby authorised, subject to the conclusion of the said Agreement (1).


Article 2
The President of the Council is hereby authorised to designate the person(s) empowered to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Union.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 20 November 2017.


For the Council


The President

M. MAASIKAS
            





(1)  The text of the Agreement will be published in the Official Journal together with the decision on its conclusion.
Decision (EU) 2017/2199 of the European Central Bank of 20 November 2017 amending Decision ECB/2014/40 on the implementation of the third covered bond purchase programme (ECB/2017/37)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: EU programme, Eurobond, central bank, euro area, financial legislation, single monetary policy








L_2017312EN.01009201.xml










28.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 312/92








            DECISION (EU) 2017/2199 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 20 November 2017
         
amending Decision ECB/2014/40 on the implementation of the third covered bond purchase programme (ECB/2017/37)


THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular the first indent of Article 127(2) thereof,


Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular the second subparagraph of Article 12.1 in conjunction with the first indent of Article 3.1, and Article 18.1 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Decision ECB/2014/40 (1) established the third covered bond purchase programme (hereinafter the ‘CBPP3’). Alongside the asset-backed securities purchase programme, the secondary markets public sector asset purchase programme and the corporate sector purchase programme, the CBPP3 is part of the expanded asset purchase programme (APP). The APP aims to further enhance the transmission of monetary policy, facilitate the provision of credit to the euro area economy, ease borrowing conditions for households and firms and contribute to returning inflation rates to levels below but close to 2 % over the medium term, consistent with the primary objective of the European Central Bank (ECB) of maintaining price stability.












(2)


The Governing Council decided on 4 October 2017 to further refine the rules applicable to the eligibility for purchase under the CBPP3 of covered bonds that are commonly referred to as conditional pass-through covered bonds, in view of the potentially higher risks to which they expose the Eurosystem.












(3)


Therefore, Decision ECB/2014/40 should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

Amendment

In Article 2 of Decision ECB/2014/40, the following point 9 is added:







‘9.


Covered bonds shall be excluded from purchases under the CBPP3 where both: (a) they have a conditional pass-through structure, whereby pre-defined events lead to an extension of the bond's maturity and a switch to a payment structure dependent primarily on cash flows generated by the assets in the underlying cover pool; and (b) they are issued by an entity with a first-best issuer rating below CQS3.’.







Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on 1 February 2018.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 20 November 2017.


For the Governing Council of the ECB


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
            





(1)  Decision ECB/2014/40 of 15 October 2014 on the implementation of the third covered bond purchase programme (OJ L 335, 22.11.2014, p. 22).
Case T-769/17: Action brought on 20 November 2017 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01005802.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/58





Action brought on 20 November 2017 — roelliroelli confectionery schweiz v EUIPO — Tanner (ALPRAUSCH)
(Case T-769/17)
(2018/C 022/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: roelliroelli confectionery schweiz GmbH (St. Gallen, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Overhage and R. Böhm, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: André Tanner (Schindellegi, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘ALPRAUSCH’ No 1 218 671

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 August 2017 in Case R 1596/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-465/16: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark cotecnica OPTIMA — Earlier EU figurative mark visán Optima PREMIUM PETFOOD — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001])
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018013EN.01001402.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/14





Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Cotécnica v EUIPO — Visán Industrias Zootécnicas (cotecnica OPTIMA)
(Case T-465/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark cotecnica OPTIMA - Earlier EU figurative mark visán Optima PREMIUM PETFOOD - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 [now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001]))
(2018/C 013/24)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Cotécnica, SCCL (Bellpuig, Spain) (represented by: J.-B. Devaureix, J. Erdozain López and J. Galán López, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL (Arganda, Spain) (represented by: P. Alesci Naranjo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2016 (Case R 229/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Visán Industrias Zootécnicas and Cotécnica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cotécnica, SCCL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Visán Industrias Zootécnicas, SL to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case T-452/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Petrov and Others v Parliament (Member of the European Parliament — Refusal of access to the buildings of the Parliament — Third-country national — Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Admissibility of a plea — Discrimination on grounds of political opinions — Equal treatment — Misuse of powers)
Date: 2017-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, ethnic discrimination, foreign national, freedom of movement, political discrimination, public building








C_2018013EN.01001202.xml










15.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/12





Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2017 — Petrov and Others v Parliament
(Case T-452/15) (1)

((Member of the European Parliament - Refusal of access to the buildings of the Parliament - Third-country national - Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Admissibility of a plea - Discrimination on grounds of political opinions - Equal treatment - Misuse of powers))
(2018/C 013/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Andrei Petrov (Saint Petersburg, Russia), Fedor Biryukov, (Moscow, Russia) and Alexander Sotnichenko (Saint Petersburg) (represented by: P. Richter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Görlitz and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 16 June 2015 refusing the applicants access to its premises.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Messrs Andrei Petrov, Fedor Biryukovand and Alexander Sotnichenko to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.