do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-773/17: Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, catering industry, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01006001.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/60





Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
(Case T-773/17)
(2018/C 022/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ — European Union trade mark No 1 054 303

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1542/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare European Union figurative mark No 1 054 303 containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ invalid;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and order the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case T-785/17: Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018032EN.01004401.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/44





Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Ilhan v EUIPO — Time Gate (SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM)
(Case T-785/17)
(2018/C 032/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Ercan Ilhan (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: S. Can, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Time Gate GmbH (Köln, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SPORTSWEAR COMPANY BIG SAM’ – International registration designating the European Union No 891 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2017 in Case R 974/2016-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 September 2017 (R 974/2016-5) and therefore allow the registration of the trademark Sportswear Company BIG SAM;










—


order Time Gate GmbH to bear its own costs;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Acquiescence pursuant Article 54 of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion of signs.
Case C-661/17: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 27 November 2017 — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, appeal, family migration, foreign national, human rights, right of asylum








C_2018042EN.01000502.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 27 November 2017 — M.A., S.A., A.Z. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal, The Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland
(Case C-661/17)
(2018/C 042/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: M.A., S.A., A.Z.

Defendants: International Protection Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and Equality, Attorney General, Ireland

Questions referred







1)


When dealing with transfer of a protection applicant under regulation 604/2013 (1) to the UK, is a national decision-maker, in considering any issues arising in relation to the discretion under art. 17 and/or any issues of protection of fundamental rights in the UK, required to disregard circumstances as they stand at the time of such consideration in relation to the proposed withdrawal of the UK from the EU?










2)


Does the concept of the ‘determining member state’ in regulation 6[0]4/2013 include the role of the member state in exercising the power recognised or conferred by art. 17 of the regulation?










3)


Do the functions of a member state [under] art. 6 of regulation 604/2013 include the power recognised or conferred by art. 17 of the regulation?










4)


Does the concept of an effective remedy apply to a first instance decision under art. 17 of regulation 604/2013 such that an appeal or equivalent remedy must be made available against such a decision and/or such that national legislation providing for an appellate procedure against a first instance decision under the regulation should be construed as encompassing an appeal from a decision under art. 17?










5)


Does art. 20(3) of regulation 604/2013 have the effect that in the absence of any evidence to displace a presumption that it is in the best interests of a child to treat his or her situation as indissociable from that of the parents, the national decision maker is not required to consider such best interests separately from the parents as a discrete issue or as a starting point for consideration of whether the transfer should be take place?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013, L 180, p. 31).
Case T-907/16: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — Schwenk Zement v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Mergers — Market for grey cement in Croatia — Decision to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Croatia, cement, economic concentration, merger control








C_2018042EN.01002601.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/26





Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — Schwenk Zement v Commission
(Case T-907/16) (1)

((Action for annulment - Competition - Mergers - Market for grey cement in Croatia - Decision to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 042/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Schwenk Zement KG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész, M. Raible and G. Wecker, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(206) 6591 final of 10 October 2016, to initiate the detailed examination phase in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, seeking to assess the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of control of Cemex Hungária Épitöanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement AG and Schwenk Zement through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Schwenk Zement KG is ordered to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.
Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17 (OJ C 330, 2.10.2017)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, aid for restructuring, company in difficulties, credit institution, damages, financial solvency, ownership, right to justice








C_2017402EN.01005601.xml










27.11.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/56





Corrigendum to the Notice in the Official Journal in Case T-499/17
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 330 of 2 October 2017
)
(2017/C 402/74)
The Notice in Case T-499/17 Esfera Capital Agencia de Valores v Commission and SRB should read as follows:

Action brought on 4 August 2017 — Global Sistematic Investment Sicav v Commission and SRB
(Case T-499/17)
(2017/C 330/22)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Global Sistematic Investment Sicav, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Pastor Palomar, F. Arroyo Romero and N. Subuh Falero, lawyers)

Defendants: Commission and Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought







—


Annul Decision SRB/EES/2017/08 of the Single Resolution Board of 7 June 2017 addressed to the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring (FROB) approving a restructuring plan in respect of Banco Popular Español;










—


Annul European Commission Decision 2017/1246 of 7 June 2017 supporting the resolution plan for Banco Popular Español; and










—


By virtue of the provision in Article 340 TFEU, declare that the SRB and European Commission are non-contractually liable and order them to make good the harm caused to the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to the arguments raised in Cases T-478/17, Mutualidad de la Abogacía y Hermandad Nacional de Arquitectos Superiores y Químicos v Single Resolution Board; T-481/17, Fundación Tatiana Pérez de Guzmán y Bueno and SFL v Single Resolution Board; T-482/17, Comercial Vascongada Recalde v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-483/17, García Suárez and Others v Commission and Single Resolution Board; T-484/17, Fidesban and Others v Single Resolution Board and T-497/17, Sáchez del Valle and Calatrava Real State 2015 v Commission and Single Resolution Board.
In particular, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its powers in the present case.
Case T-772/17: Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, broadcasting, culture, education, leisure, registered trade mark, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2018022EN.01005901.xml










22.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 22/59





Action brought on 27 November 2017 — Café del Mar and Others v EUIPO — Guiral Broto (Café del Mar)
(Case T-772/17)
(2018/C 022/79)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Café del Mar SC (Sant Antoni de Portmany, Spain), José Les Viamonte (Sant Antoni de Portmany) and Carlos Andrea González (Sant Antoni de Portmany) (represented by: F. Miazzetto and J. L. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ramón Guiral Broto (Marbella, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ — European Union trade mark No 2 090 520

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2017 in Case R 1540/2015-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare European Union figurative mark No 2 090 520 containing the word elements ‘Café del Mar’ invalid;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, and order the proprietor of the trade mark at issue to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and the Boards of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation No 2017/1001.
Case C-662/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lodged on 27 November 2017 — E. G. v Republic of Slovenia
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to refugees, foreign national, refugee, right of asylum








C_2018032EN.01001501.xml










29.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije lodged on 27 November 2017 — E. G. v Republic of Slovenia
(Case C-662/17)
(2018/C 032/22)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: E. G.

Respondent: Republic of Slovenia

Questions referred







1.


Is the appellant’s interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II (1) to be interpreted to the effect that subsidiary protection status does not grant the same rights and benefits as refugee status if, under national law, foreign nationals granted international protection do enjoy the same rights and benefits but a different approach is adopted in defining the duration or cessation of international protection, inasmuch as refugee status is granted to refugees for an indefinite period but ceases when the circumstances on the basis of which it was granted cease, whereas subsidiary protection is granted for a specified period and is extended if the reasons for it continue to exist?










2.


Must the appellant’s interest within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II be interpreted to the effect that subsidiary protection status does not offer the same rights and benefits as refugee status, if, under national law, foreign nationals granted international protection do enjoy the same rights and benefits but the ancillary rights on which those rights and benefits are based are different?










3.


Is it necessary, in the light of the appellant’s individual situation, to examine whether, in view of his particular circumstances, the grant of refugee status would confer on him more rights than those afforded by the grant of subsidiary protection, or whether, for the interest referred to in the second paragraph of Article 46(2) of Procedural Directive II to continue to exist, it is sufficient for there to be legislative provisions [Or. 8] that draw a distinction between the ancillary rights that are based on the rights and benefits of the two forms of international protection?






(1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).
Judgment of the Court of 27 November 2017 in Case E-12/16 — Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Fish and other marine products — Material scope of the EEA Agreement — Protocol 9 — Surveillance competence)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, control of State aid, fishing industry








C_2018119EN.01000901.xml










5.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/9





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 27 November 2017
in Case E-12/16
Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway

(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Fish and other marine products — Material scope of the EEA Agreement — Protocol 9 — Surveillance competence)

(2018/C 119/10)
In Case E-12/16, Marine Harvest ASA supported by the Federation of Norwegian Industries (Norsk Industri) v EFTA Surveillance Authority supported by the Kingdom of Norway – APPLICATION for the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision of 27 July 2016 in ESA Case No 79116, and for a declaration that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has the competence and obligation to carry out surveillance of State aid to the fisheries sector, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur), and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the application as unfounded.










2.


Orders Marine Harvest ASA to bear its own costs and the costs incurred by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.










3.


Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
Judgment of the Court of 27 November 2017 in Case E-19/16 — Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government (Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, commuting, labour law, occupational safety, working time








C_2018119EN.01001001.xml










5.4.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/10





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 27 November 2017
in Case E-19/16
Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government

(Directive 2003/88/EC — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Working time — Travel to and/or from a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance)

(2018/C 119/11)
In Case E-19/16, Thorbjørn Selstad Thue supported by the Norwegian Police Federation (Politiets Fellesforbund) v The Norwegian Government — REQUEST to the Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Supreme Court of Norway (Norges Høyesterett) concerning the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen, and Ása Ólafsdóttir (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 27 November 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the appellant, to and/or from a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2003/88/EC.










2.


No intensity assessment is required of the amount of work performed while travelling.










3.


The frequency of such journeys is immaterial unless the effect is to transfer the worker’s place of employment to a new fixed or habitual place of attendance.
Case T-902/16: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission (Actions for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Grey cement market in Croatia — Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2017-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Croatia, cement, economic concentration, merger control








C_2018042EN.01002502.xml










5.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 42/25





Order of the General Court of 27 November 2017 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
(Case T-902/16) (1)

((Actions for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Grey cement market in Croatia - Decision to initiate the in-depth examination phase pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 042/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes, H. Leupold and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate the in-depth examination phase, pursuant to Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004, aimed at assessing the compatibility with the internal market of the acquisition of the control of Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft. and Cemex Hrvatska d.d. by HeidelbergCement and Schwenk Zement KG through Duna-Dráva Cement Kft.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


HeidelbergCement AG is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.