ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/14

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania) — Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11) v Statul român

(Joined Cases C-483/11 and C-484/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 43, 92(1) and 103(1)of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime - Right to compensation for non-material harm suffered - Failure to implement European Union law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

2012/C 73/24

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Argeș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Andrei Emilian Boncea, Filofteia Catrinel Boncea, Adriana Boboc, Cornelia Mihăilescu (C-483/11), Mariana Budan (C-484/11)

Defendant: Statul român

Intervener: Iulian-Nicolae Cujbescu (Case C-484/11)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Tribunalul Argeș — Interpretation of Article 5 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — Compensation payable to persons sentenced in political trials under the Communist regime — Admissibility of national legislation reducing the right to compensation for non-material harm suffered

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Tribunalul Argeș, Romania, by decisions of 4 April and 4 July 2011.

(1) OJ C 347, 26.11.2011
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/30

Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

(Case C-54/11) (1)

2011/C 311/49

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/4

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

(Case C-117/11) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 28(2)(a) - Article 28(3)(b) - Exemption of certain transport services - Transaction combining car parking services and the transport of travellers between the car park and an airport - Existence of two separate supplies of services or of a single supply - Principle of fiscal neutrality)

2012/C 109/07

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Purple Parking Ltd, Airparks Services Ltd

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — Interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right of the Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage — Maintenance, under national legislation, of an exemption with refund of the tax paid in respect of the supply of certain transport services — Operator supplying, to air travellers, a car parking service together with transport between the car park and the airport — Transaction to be regarded, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or several distinct supplies?

Operative part of the order

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the rate of value added tax applicable, services for the parking of a vehicle in an ‘off-airport’ car park and for the transport of the passengers of that vehicle between that car park and the airport terminal concerned must, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be regarded as a single complex supply of services in which the parking service is predominant.

(1) OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/25

Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Maria das Dores Meira da Silva v Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA

(Case C-13/11) (1)

2012/C 73/45

Language of the case: Portuguese

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

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/13

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Novartis AG v Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd

(Case C-574/11) (1)

(The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 4 and 5 - Sole active ingredient for which such a certificate is granted - Scope of protection - Medicinal product containing more than one active ingredient, including the active ingredient which is the subject of a certificate)

2012/C 133/24

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Novartis AG

Defendants: Actavis Deutschland GmbH & Co KG, Actavis Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 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) — Scope of the certificate — Protection solely of medicinal products consisting only of the protected active ingredient or protection extended to medicinal products consisting of the protected active ingredient in combination with another active ingredient

Operative part of the order

Articles 4 and 5 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 meaning that, where a ‘product’ consisting of an active ingredient was protected by a basic patent and the holder of that patent was able to rely on the protection conferred by that patent for that ‘product’ in order to oppose the marketing of a medicinal product containing that active ingredient in combination with one or more other active ingredients, a supplementary protection certificate granted for that ‘product’ enables its holder, after the basic patent has expired, to oppose the marketing by a third party of a medicinal product containing that product for a use of the ‘product’, as a medicinal product, which was authorised before that certificate expired.

(1) OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 258/8

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2012 — Deichmann SE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-307/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines)

2012/C 258/13

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deichmann SE (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-202/09 Deichmann SE v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2009 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the figurative sign representing a chevron edged with dotted lines as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 10 and 25 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Deichmann SE shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/27

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 5 July 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-70/11) (1)

2012/C 366/49

Language of the case: Swedish

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

(1) OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 101/4

Order of the Court of 27 September 2012 — Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Felmar

(Case C-624/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(4) - Community word mark BRIGHTON - Opposition proceedings - Interpretation of the provisions of national law on relative grounds for refusal of registration)

2013/C 101/08

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (represented by: J. Horn, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Felmar (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Felmar (represented by: D. Monégier du Sorbier, avocat)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 27 September 2011 in Case T-403/10 Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 June 2010 (Case R 408/2009-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Brighton Collectibles, Inc. and Felmar — Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Community word mark BRIGHTON — Opposition proceedings based on earlier national word and figurative marks — Failure to give sufficient reasons with regard to the national laws relied upon

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Brighton Collectibles, Inc. shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/24

Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Muhamad Mugraby v Council of the European Union, European Commission

(Case C-581/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for a declaration of failure to act - Infringement of fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Lebanon - Failure of the Council and of the Commission to take measures against the Republic of Lebanon - Action for damages - Appeal clearly unfounded and clearly inadmissible)

2013/C 9/39

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: S. Delhaye, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2011 in Case T-292/09 Mugraby v Council and Commission dismissing an action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Council and the Commission unlawfully omitted to take a decision on the then applicant’s request concerning the adoption of measures against Lebanon on account of the alleged violation by the latter of the then applicant’s fundamental rights and of the Association Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Lebanon, and dismissing, moreover, an action seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the then applicant as a result of those Community institutions’ failure to act

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Mugraby shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 55/2

Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Transcatab SpA, in liquidation v European Commission

(Case C-654/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchasing and primary processing of raw tobacco - Price fixing and market sharing - Attribution of liability for the unlawful conduct of a subsidiary to its parent company - Presumption of innocence - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Principle of equal treatment)

2013/C 55/03

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Transcatab SpA, in liquidation (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2011 in Case T-39/06 Transcatab v Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) and for a reduction of the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision and the counterclaim by the Commission seeking to increase that fine — Italian market for the purchasing and primary processing of raw tobacco — Attribution of liability to a parent company for infringements of competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Rebuttable presumption in the case of a 100 % shareholding — Fundamental principles governing the taking of evidence — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Principle of equal treatment

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is rejected.

2. Transcatab SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/34

Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG

(Case C-317/11) (1)

2013/C 9/57

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/41

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln — Germany) — Germanwings GmbH v Thomas Amend

(Case C-413/11) (1)

(Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Passengers’ right to compensation in the event of long delay to a flight - Principle of the separation of powers in the European Union)

2013/C 225/69

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: Thomas Amend

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Köln — Interpretation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(a) and 9 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Right to compensation in the event of delay — Limits of the jurisdiction of the Court — Scope of the interpretation given in the judgment of the Court of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 Sturgeon and Others, extending, by analogy, the right to compensation to delay to a flight

Operative part of the order

The interpretation given by the Court to 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, to the effect that passengers whose flights are delayed have a right to compensation where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time initially scheduled, even though, first, Article 6 of that regulation, relating to delay, provides only for the application of measures of assistance and of care and, secondly, reference is made to Article 7 of that regulation, relating to the right to compensation, only in situations of denied boarding and flight cancellation, has no bearing on the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union.

(1) OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 9.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/5

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania)) — SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL v Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

(Case C-627/11) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)

2013/C 108/09

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SC ‘AUGUSTUS’ Iași SRL

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți pentru Dezvoltare Rurală și Pescuit

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development in the applicant countries of central and eastern Europe in the pre-accession period (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 87) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Cancellation and recovery, in the event of improper conduct, of Community funding granted under the SAPARD programme — Eligibility of expenditure — Cases of force majeure — Justification — Notions of ‘economic efficiency’ and ‘profitability’

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Inalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Secția de contencios administrativ și fiscal (Romania), by decision of 3 November 2011, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 303/8

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Majali Abdel

(Case C-75/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No description of the main proceedings - manifestly inadmissible)

2012/C 303/17

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di Pace di Revere

Party in the main proceedings

Majali Abdel

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Revere — Interpretation of Articles 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) and Article 4(3) TEU — National legislation imposing a fine on a foreign national who has entered national territory illegally or has stayed there illegally — Whether it is permissible to regard illegal stay as a criminal offence — Whether it is possible to substitute for the fine an order for immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years or a measure restricting freedom (‘permanenza domiciliare’) — Member States’ obligations during the period for transposition of a directive

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Revere (Italy), by decision of 26 January 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/8

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 February 2013 — Saupiquet SAS v European Commission

(Case C-37/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common customs tariff - Tariff quota - Sunday closure of customs offices - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment - Accountability)

2013/C 108/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B.-R. Killmann and L. Keppenne, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission by which the General Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 10005 final of 16 December 2009, holding that refunding import duties on canned tuna fish originating in Thailand to the appellant is not justified — Closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Incorrect interpretation

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Saupiquet SAS is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/16

Order of the President of the Court of 11 December 2012 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Rostock — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Per Harald Lökkevik, other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Rostock

(Case C-384/12) (1)

2013/C 63/31

Language of the case: German

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

(1) OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 108/19

Order of the President of the Court of 9 November 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel — Luxembourg) — État du Grand-duché de Luxembourg, Administration de l'enregistrement et des domaines v Edenred Luxembourg SA

(Case C-395/12) (1)

2013/C 108/52

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 129/4

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 March 2013 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against EBS Le relais Nord Pas De Calais

(Case C-240/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

2013/C 129/07

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank te Rotterdam

Criminal proceedings against

EBS Le relais Nord Pas De Calais

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank te Rotterdam — Netherlands — Interpretation of Articles 15 and 26(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1) and of Article 2(32) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Concept of transit — Shipment of waste by vessel from one Member State towards a State which does not fall within the scope of application of the OECD Decision — Passage, during the journey, in a port of another Member State

Operative part of the order

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 4 May 2012, is manifestly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.