# C_2011232EN.01001103.xml

| 6.8.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 April 2011 — Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt. v Plastinnova 2000 Kft.

(Case C-180/11)

(2011/C 232/20)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt.

Defendant: Plastinnova 2000 Kft.

Intervener: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala (Hungarian Intellectual Property Office) (formerly Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal (Hungarian Patent Office))

Questions referred

| 1. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court is not bound by the claims or statements with legal effect made by the parties, and the court is entitled to order of its own motion any evidence that it may deem necessary?

| 2. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to an application for invalidation of a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court, when making its decision, is not bound by the administrative decision made in relation to the application for invalidation, or by the findings established therein, nor, specifically, by the grounds for invalidation indicated during the administrative procedure, or by the declarations, assertions or evidence submitted during the administrative procedure?

| 3. | Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to a further application aimed at invalidating a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court excludes any evidence submitted with the further application, including evidence relating to the state of the art, to which reference was already made in connection with the previous application for invalidation of a utility model? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it consistent with European Union law if, during proceedings to amend a decision relating to a further application aimed at invalidating a utility model, the measures, procedures and legal remedies are applied in such a way that: the national court excludes any evidence submitted with the further application, including evidence relating to the state of the art, to which reference was already made in connection with the previous application for invalidation of a utility model?

---