do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-607/22, Eurowings (Non-existent flight): Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2 — Concept of ‘operating air carrier’ — Flight booked through a tour operator — Allegedly non-existent flight)
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, contract, indemnification, package travel, travel agency, traveller








C_2023179EN.01001101.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/11






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH
(Case C-607/22, (1) Eurowings (Non-existent flight))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2 - Concept of ‘operating air carrier’ - Flight booked through a tour operator - Allegedly non-existent flight)
(2023/C 179/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 2(b) of 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,
must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier cannot be classified as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where a passenger has concluded a contract with a tour operator for a particular flight, with a flight number and a date, which was supposed to be operated by that air carrier, without the air carrier ever having scheduled a flight with that flight number for that date, but may be regarded as an ‘operating air carrier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it has made an offer which, as the case may be, has been the subject of subsequent amendments on its part.


(1)  Date lodged: 20.9.2022.
Notice for the attention of one entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2023/C 89/02
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person








C_2023089EN.01000701.xml










10.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/7






Notice for the attention of one entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2023/C 89/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of Fajr Aviation Composite Industries (no. 12), an entity appearing in Annex II, Part I, to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX, Part I, to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned entity with new statement of reasons. The entity concerned is hereby informed that it may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for its designation, by 17 March 2023, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.
Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, financial aid, power plant, principle of legal certainty, renewable energy








C_2023179EN.01001801.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2023 — Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE v Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl and Others
(Case C-148/23, Gestore dei Servizi Energetici)
(2023/C 179/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

Respondents: Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Ginestra Srl, Erg Eolica Campania SpA, Erg Eolica Fossa del Lupo Srl, Erg Eolica Amaroni Srl, Erg Eolica Adriatica Srl, Erg Eolica San Vincenzo Srl, Erg Eolica San Circeo Srl, Erg Eolica Faeto Srl, Green Vicari Srl, Erg Wind Energy Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 3 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 6 Srl, Erg Wind 4 Srl, Erg Wind 6 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 5 Srl, Erg Wind 2000 Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 2 Srl, Erg Wind Sardegna Srl, Erg Wind Sicilia 4 Srl, Erg Hydro Srl, Erg Power Generation SpA, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

Must Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources, amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, (1) in particular recitals 8, 14, 25 and Articles 1 and 3, and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, be interpreted as precluding a rule of national law, such as that resulting from the provisions of decreto legislativo 3 marzo 2011, n. 28 (Legislative Decree No 28 of 3 March 2011) and decreto ministeriale 6 luglio 2012 (Ministerial Decree of 6 July 2012) — as interpreted by the settled case-law of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) — which makes the granting of incentives subject to the conclusion of private-law contracts between GSE and the entity responsible for the plant, including plants for the production of electricity powered by renewable sources which began operating before 31 December 2012?


(1)  OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16.
Notice for the attention of one entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses 2023/C 89/03
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, legal person, territorial dispute, territorial law








C_2023089EN.01000801.xml










10.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/8






Notice for the attention of one entity subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses
(2023/C 89/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of the Wagner Group, entity subject to restrictive measures in the Annex to Council Decision 2020/1999/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 2020/1998 (2) concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses.
The Council intends to include the abovementioned entity in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (3) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (4) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
The entity concerned is hereby informed that it may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for its designation, by 17 March 2023, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(4)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/387 of 20 February 2023 in support of a global reporting mechanism on illicit conventional arms and their ammunition to reduce the risk of their diversion and illicit transfer (‘iTrace V’) (Official Journal of the European Union L 53 of 21 February 2023)
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU financing, arms control, arms trade, conventional weapon, exchange of information, export monitoring, fight against crime, illicit trade, international cooperation, non-proliferation of arms




L_2023073EN.01006701.xml










10.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 73/67







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2023/387 of 20 February 2023 in support of a global reporting mechanism on illicit conventional arms and their ammunition to reduce the risk of their diversion and illicit transfer (‘iTrace V’)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 53 of 21 February 2023
)


Page 21, Article 2, paragraph 2:
for:


‘2.   The technical implementation of the project referred to in Article 1 shall be carried out by Conflict Armament Research Ltd (‘CAR’).’,


read:


‘2.   The technical implementation of the project referred to in Article 1 shall be carried out by Conflict Armament Research (‘CAR’).’.
Case T-130/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Nike Innovate v EUIPO — Puma (FOOTWARE)
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet of Things, cloud computing, computer equipment, information storage, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2023155EN.01007301.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/73






Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Nike Innovate v EUIPO — Puma (FOOTWARE)
(Case T-130/23)
(2023/C 155/90)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nike Innovate CV (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: J.-C. Rebling, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FOOTWARE — European Union trade mark No 18 035 847

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2023 in Case R 2173/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the decision of the EUIPO Cancellation Division to maintain the registration in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the Applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by misinterpreting the nature of a suitable characteristic that can fall foul of this provision;










—


The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by not considering the varying ways in which the mark would be perceived in relation to the broad scope of individual goods and services covered by the registration;










—


The Board of Appeal infringed and misapplied Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council by not considering properly how the mark would be perceived in relation to the goods by different consumer groups with different knowledge of the English language and how that linguistic understanding would impact on their perception of the mark;










—


The Board of Appeal misapplied Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and infringed Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


The Board of Appeal infringed Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-137/23: Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission
Date: 2023-03-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: data protection, drug surveillance, generic drug, market approval








C_2023179EN.01006001.xml










22.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/60






Action brought on 10 March 2023 — Biogen Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-137/23)
(2023/C 179/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biogen Netherlands BV (Badhoevedorp, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 12 December 2022 C(2022) 9544 (final) granting marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (1) for ‘Dimethyl Fumarate Teva — dimethyl fumarate’, a medicinal product for human use; and










—


order the Commission 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 failure to observe the system of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) in relation to the rules on regulatory data protection, including Article 6(1) of that Directive, and the obligations of generic applicants under Article 10(1) of that Directive.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to recognise the consequences of the Opinion of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of 11 November 2021 for the question whether the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Fumaderm was capable of commencing a global marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Tecfidera in accordance with Article 6(1), second subparagraph, of Directive 2001/83/EC.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004, L 136, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001, L 311, p. 67).