ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/8

Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-518/10) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Marketing authorisation - Medicinal product placed on the market containing only one active ingredient whereas the patent claims a combination of active ingredients)

2012/C 73/13

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Definition of ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Effect of Agreement 89/695/EEC relating to Community patents on the evaluation of those criteria if there is indirect or contributory infringement for the purpose of Article 26 of that agreement

Operative part of the order

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate where the active ingredient specified in the application, even though identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent as an active ingredient forming part of a combination in conjunction with another active ingredient, is not the subject of any claim relating to that active ingredient alone.

(1) OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/39

Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Elena Vermisheva

(Case C-187/11) (1)

2011/C 269/85

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/12

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Inno NV v Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA

(Case C-126/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting announcements of price reductions and those suggestive of such reductions)

2012/C 73/20

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inno NV

Defendants: Unie van Zelfstandige Ondernemers VZW (UNIZO), Organisatie voor de Zelfstandige Modedetailhandel VZW (Mode Unie), Couture Albert BVBA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22)

Operative part of the order

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a general prohibition on announcements of price reductions and those suggestive of such reductions in the period preceding the period of sales, in so far as that provision pursues objectives related to consumer protection.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/12

Order of the President of the Court of 19 April 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Malta

(Case C-178/11) (1)

2012/C 235/25

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/4

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 23 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Paris — France) — Thomson Sales Europe SA v Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

(Case C-348/11) (1)

(Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Common commercial policy - Dumping - Importation of televisions manufactured in Thailand - Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 710/95 and 2584/98)

2012/C 235/06

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomson Sales Europe SA

Defendant: Administration des douanes (Direction Nationale du Renseignement et des Enquêtes douanières)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de Paris — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in Malaysia, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 1995 L 73, p. 3) — Validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, amending Regulation (EC) No 710/95 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 1) — Regulations applying a method consistent with zeroing to determine the weighted average dumping margin — Validity of the investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on the origin of the televisions

Operative part of the order

The examination of Questions 4 and 5 does not disclose any factor capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 710/95 of 27 March 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of colour television receivers originating in [Malaysia], the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed, or Council Regulation No 2584/98 of 27 November 1998, ameding Regulation No 710/95.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.09.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/6

Order of the Court of 14 May 2012 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission

(Case C-477/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Medicinal products for human use - Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ - Marketing authorisation - Procedure - Statement of position by the Commission - Status of ‘new active substance’ - Concept of ‘actionable measure’)

2012/C 303/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, solicitor, D. Anderson QC, and J. Stratford, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09 P Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2009 finding, in the context of the procedure for granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Lunivia’, produced by the appellant, that the active substance ‘eszopiclone’, which it contains, does not constitute a new active substance within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Concept of actionable measure

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Sepracor Pharmaceuticals Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/11

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 February 2012 — Yorma’s AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-191/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark with the word element ‘yorma’s’ - Earlier Community word mark NORMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion)

2012/C 133/19

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Yorma’s AG (represented by: A. Weiß, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 in Case T-213/09 Yorma’s v OHIM — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb (YORMA’S) dismissing the application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 February 2009 refusing registration of the figurative sign with the word element ‘yorma’s’ as a Community trade mark for certain services in Classes 35 and 42 and upholding the opposition brought by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘NORMA’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the similarity of the marks and services concerned — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Yorma’s AG shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/18

Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament

(Case C-278/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Review of the use of allowances - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Justification of expenditure - Recovery of undue payments)

2012/C 366/30

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Densmore Ronald Dover (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister and R. Collard, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-149/09 Dover v European Parliament by which the General Court annulled in part the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 to recover certain sums unduly paid to the appellant by way of expenses and parliamentary allowances

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Densmore Ronald Dover is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/6

Order of the President of the Court of 28 June 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Münster — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Thomas Karl-Heinz Kerkhoff, intervener: Amtsgericht Münster

(Case C-408/11) (1)

2012/C 389/10

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 211, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/4

Order of the Court of 10 October 2012 — ara AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allrounder SARL

(Case C-611/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs - Earlier national word mark A - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion)

2013/C 101/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: ara AG (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allrounder SARL (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2011 in Case T-174/10 ara v OHIM — Allrounder (A with two triangular motifs), by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2010 (Case R 481/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between ara and Allrounder — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Figurative mark A with two triangular motifs — Opposition by the holder of the national word mark ‘A’ — Likelihood of confusion between two marks — Incorrect assessment of the distinctive character

Operative part of the order

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders ara AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 379/12

Order of the Court of 18 September 2012 — Omnicare Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-588/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the word sign ‘OMNICARE’ - Opposition - Decision of the Board of Appeal rejecting the application - Action - Judgment of the General Court dismissing that action - Withdrawal of the opposition - Appeal - No need to adjudicate)

2012/C 379/20

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Omnicare Inc. (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Astellas Pharma GmbH (represented by: M.L. Polo Carreño, abogada)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09 Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE) in which the General Court dismissed an action, brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Class 42, for the annulment of Decision R 402/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 14 May 2009 annulling the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the proprietor of the national mark ‘OMNICARE’ for services in Classes 35, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Notion of genuine use of an earlier mark — Mark used for services provided free of charge

Operative part of the order

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Omnicare Inc.

2. Omnicare Inc. shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings for interim measures.

3. Omnicare Inc. and Astellas Pharma GmbH shall each bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/2

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others

(Case C-393/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination)

2013/C 129/02

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas

Defendants: Antonella Bertazzi, Annalise Colombo, Maria Valeria Contin, Angela Filippina Marasco, Guido Giussani, Lucia Lizzi, Fortuna Peranio

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Clause 4 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation under which it is possible, in derogation from the principle that public officials must be recruited by means of an open competition, for the public administrative authorities to enter into permanent work contracts with workers who have been in the employ of those authorities under fixed-term contracts — No account taken of the length of service accrued on the basis of the earlier, fixed-term contract, even where there is no interruption of the employment relationship

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be understood as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, unless the functions carried out under fixed-term employment contracts are not the equivalent of those carried out by a career civil servant belonging to the relevant category of that authority or, if not, that that prohibition is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4), which it is for the referring court to determine. The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

(1) OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/6

Order of the Court of 29 November 2012 — Dimos Peramatos v European Commission

(Case C-647/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Funding granted to a project in the environmental field - ‘LIFE’ - Decision for partial recovery of the amount paid - Determination of the obligations on the recipient - Legitimate expectations - Obligation to state reasons - Errors of law)

2013/C 108/10

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellant: Dimos Peramatos (represented by: G. Gerapetritis, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents, assisted by A. Somou, Δικηγόρος)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-312/07 Dimos Peramatos v Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission decision of 7 December 2005, served on the appellant by bailiff on 17 May 2007, seeking recovery of sums paid in implementation of Commission Decision C/1997/29 final of 17 July 1997 relating to a project falling within the framework of a reforestation programme or, in the alternative, for amendment of the contested decision

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The Dimos Peramatos is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/37

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2013 — ClientEarth v Council of the European Union, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-573/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party - Action for annulment manifestly inadmissible - Grounds of the appeal manifestly unfounded)

2013/C 344/64

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: C. Fekete and B. Driessen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Re:

Appeal against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-452/10 ClientEarth v Council, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Council of 26 July 2010 refusing to allow the applicant full access to an opinion drafted by the Council Legal Service (document No 6865/09) regarding a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning public access to documents of the European Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. ClientEarth shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/56

Order of the President of the Court of 22 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer (C-436/11), Ekkerhard Schauβ (C-437/11) v Iberia Líneas Aéreas de España SA (C-436/11), Transportes Aéreos Portugueses SA (C-437/11)

(Joined Cases C-436/11 and C-437/11) (1)

2013/C 225/106

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/34

Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Eva-Marie Brännström, Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc

(Case C-150/12) (1)

2013/C 9/59

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/21

Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Vu Thang Dang, interested party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

(Case C-39/12) (1)

2012/C 303/42

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/12

Order of the President of the Court of 14 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék, (formerly Fővárosi Bíróság) — Hungary) — Peró Gáz Kft v János Balla

(Case C-349/12) (1)

2013/C 129/23

Language of the case: Hungarian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.