ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 6/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 17 October 2011 — SIA Mednis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-525/11)

2012/C 6/08

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: SIA Mednis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Question referred

Does Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax give a Member State the right, without carrying out any specific analysis and solely on the basis of an arithmetical calculation, not to refund that part of the excess tax that is over 18 % (the standard rate of VAT) of the total value of the taxable transactions carried out in the corresponding monthly tax periods until the State tax authority has received the annual return of the person subject to value added tax?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 370/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 23 September 2011 — Fruition Po Limited v Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

(Case C-500/11)

2011/C 370/28

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fruition Po Limited

Defendant: Minister for Sustainable Farming and Food and Animal Health

Questions referred

1. In circumstances where (a) a Member State was considering recognition of a body as a producer organisation under Article 11 of Council Regulation 2200/96 (1); (b) the body had aims and rules of association complying with the requirements of Article 11; (c) producer members of the body received all the services required to be provided to them by a producer organisation under Article 11; and (d) the body had engaged contractors to provide a substantial proportion of such services was Article 11 to be interpreted, consistently with the principle of legal certainty, as requiring the body to have a degree of control over the contractors?

2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, what degree of control was Article 11 to be interpreted as requiring?

3. In particular, did the body have the degree of control, if any, required by Article 11 in circumstances (a) where the contractors were: 1. a company 93 % of the shares in which were held by members of the body; and 2. a company 50 % of the shares in which were held by the first company and whose constitution provided that decisions taken by the company should be taken on the basis of unanimity; (b) neither company was subject to a contractual obligation to comply with the body's instructions to them in relation to the activities in question; but (c) as a consequence of the shareholding structure described above, the body and the contractors operated on the basis of consensus?

4. Is it relevant to the determination of the above questions that: (a) Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation 1432/03 (2), laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations, expressly provided at the relevant time that ‘Member States shall determine the conditions’ on which producer organisations could entrust to third parties the performance of its tasks; (b) the Member State referred to in question 1 had at the relevant time failed to determine such conditions?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables

OJ L 297, p. 1

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2003 of 11 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 regarding the conditions for recognition of producer organisations and preliminary recognition of producer groups

OJ L 203, p. 18
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/2

Appeal lodged on 24 May 2011 by Massimo Campailla against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2011 in Case T-429/09 Campailla v European Commission

(Case C-265/11 P)

2012/C 13/02

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Massimo Campailla (represented by: M. Campailla)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 6 October 2011, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared the appeal inadmissible.
1.

Is Article 63 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit a derogation where the chargeable event relating to the performance of work for the construction of certain individual properties in a building occurs before the actual performance of the construction work and that that (chargeable event) is linked to the time of the occurrence of the chargeable event relating to the transaction to be performed in return, which consists in the establishment of a building right relating to other properties in that building, which also forms the consideration for the construction work?
Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Omnicare, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-290/09: Omnicare, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Astellas Pharma GmbH

(Case C-588/11 P)

(2012/C 25/77)

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), Astellas Pharma GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant seeks an Order that the judgment under appeal be annulled. Further, the Appellant seeks an Order for its costs of this appeal and before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant relies upon a single plea in law, namely that the General Court wrongly applied Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) № 207/2009 (1) (the ‘New Regulation’). This case involves an opposition brought by Astellas Pharma GmbH (formerly Yamanouchi Pharma GmbH) (the ‘Opponent’) based upon the Opponent's German trade mark registration № 394 01348 and an allegation of the existence of confusion pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Council Regulation (EC) № 40/94 (2) (‘the Old Regulation’) (but which is identical to the pertinent parts of the New Regulation). As the earlier mark had been registered for more than five years before the Opposition was commenced, it was necessary for the Opponent to prove that the mark has been put to genuine use in order for it to be used as a basis for the Opposition.

It is submitted that the General Court wrongly held that the earlier trade mark upon which the Opponent relied had, as a matter of law, been put to genuine use. It is not disputed that the mark in question had actually been used in the course of trade by or with the consent of the Opponent in relation to the services for which it was registered. However, that use was in relation to the provision of services for which no charge was levied. Accordingly, as a matter of law, such use cannot be invoked to establish that the mark had been put to genuine use. This point has been the subject of some case law, which the Appellant submits (a) was mis-applied by the General Court, and (b) is inconsistent in any event. Accordingly, the matter of the legal consequences that ought to be drawn in such a factual scenario needs to be resolved by this Court.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 78, p. 1

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark

OJ L 11, p. 1
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 8 November 2011 — Fédération Cynologique Internationale v Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

(Case C-561/11)

(2012/C 25/65)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Alicante

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fédération Cynologique Internationale

Defendant: Federación Canina Internacional de Perros de Pura Raza

Question referred

In proceedings for infringement of the exclusive right conferred by a Community trade mark, does the right to prevent the use thereof by third parties in the course of trade provided for in Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark extend to any third party who uses a sign that involves a likelihood of confusion (because it is similar to the Community trade mark and the services or goods are similar) or, on the contrary, is the third party who uses that sign (capable of being confused) which has been registered in his name as a Community trade mark excluded until such time as that subsequent trade mark registration has been declared invalid?

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 17 October 2011 — Lowlands Design Holding BV, other party: Minister van Financiën

(Case C-524/11)

(2012/C 25/47)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Lowlands Design Holding BV

Respondent: Minister van Financiën

Question referred

How should CN subheadings 6209 20, 6211 42 and CN subheading 9404 30 be interpreted for the purposes of the tariff classification of articles for babies or for young children such as those at issue here?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/9

Action brought on 18 November 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-576/11)

2012/C 39/16

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by not taking all necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 23 November 2006 in Case C-425/05, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg to pay to the Commission the proposed penalty payment of EUR 11 340 for each day of delay in compliance with the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05, running from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-452/05 has been complied with;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the Commission a daily lump sum of EUR 1 248, running from the date of delivery of the judgment of 23 November 2006 in Case C-452/05 until the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, or until the date upon which the judgment in Case C-452/05 has been complied with, if it is implemented earlier;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission argues that, as is clear from examining the information communicated by the Luxembourg authorities, Luxembourg has not, to date, fully complied with the judgment of the Court almost five years after that judgment was delivered. Luxembourg has not complied with the provisions of either Article 5(4) or Article 5(2). Six waste water treatment plants serving agglomerations with a population equivalent of over 10 000 are still not compliant with the requirements laid down by Directive 97/221/EEC (1).

(1) Council Directive of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Iberdrola, S.A. and Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.

(Case C-566/11)

2012/C 39/13

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Iberdrola, SA and Gas Natural SDG, S.A.

Other parties: Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

(1) OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 58/2

Appeal brought on 30 November 2011 by Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission

(Case C-514/11 P)

2012/C 58/02

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, advogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Form of order sought

— Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08, in so far as it: 1. dismisses the claims of the appellant, LPN, (without annulling the Commission decision of 22 November 2007); 2. orders LPN to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission; since, in both cases, the General Court makes various errors of assessment which vitiate its judgment.

— Uphold the claims of the appellant, annulling the Commission decision of 22 November 2007 in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which it continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.

— Order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the appellant at first and second instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment of the General Court dismissed the action brought by LPN against the Commission decision of 22 November 2007, in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which the appellant continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.

The contested decision must be annulled on the grounds of the following errors of law:

(i) Misinterpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies; (1)

(ii) Misinterpretation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; (2)

(iii) Error of assessment in the apportionment of the costs of the proceedings.

Consequently, the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance should be granted, and the Commission decision of 22 November 2007 annulled, in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which the appellant continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.

(1) OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

(2) OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 49/18

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia), lodged on 19 December 2011 — Ilgvars Brunovskis v Lauku atbalsta dienests

(Case C-650/11)

2012/C 49/31

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ilgvars Brunovskis

Respondent: Lauku atbalsta dienests

Questions referred

1. Should Article 125(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the premium which is to be established per suckler cow is applicable to all suckler cows which come into existence during the calendar year?

2. Should Article 102(2) of Regulation No 1973/2004 (2) be interpreted as meaning that the period of six months should be regarded as a time-limit for lodging applications for a premium?

3. If the answer to the second question is affirmative, where a Member State has reduced that time-limit, would the Member State be obliged to pay compensation for losses incurred by a farmer if he did not have the opportunity to make full use of the time-limit for applications established in the regulation?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 of 29 October 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials (OJ 2004 L 345, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2011 — M and Others v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-666/11)

2012/C 73/34

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: M, N, O, P, Q

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1. In court proceedings concerning a declaration of lack of responsibility and an order that he be removed to the Member State responsible in the view of the Member State in which an application for asylum was lodged (requesting Member State), may an asylum seeker rely on the fact that the transfer has not taken place within the time-limit of six months under Article 19(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 (1) and therefore that the responsibility lies with the requesting Member State?

2. Does a suicide attempt, even one which is faked, as a result of which transfer to the Member State responsible is not possible, constitute absconding within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 19(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003?

3. In court proceedings concerning a declaration of lack of responsibility and an order that he be removed, may an asylum seeker rely on a transfer of responsibility under the second sentence of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003? (2)

4. If the requesting Member State informs the Member State responsible that the transfer which has already been organised has been postponed, but not that the transfer cannot be carried out within the time-limit of six months, does this prevent the transfer of responsibility under the second sentence of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003?

5. Does the asylum seeker have a right, enforceable by him in the courts, to require a Member State to examine the assumption of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2003 and to inform him about the grounds for its decision?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3).
1.

Should Article 2(1), in conjunction with recital 9 of the preamble, 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 (1) be interpreted to mean that this Directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status? (2)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — SNC Doux Élevage and Société Coopérative Agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l'aménagement du territoire and Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

(Case C-677/11)

2012/C 89/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat, France

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SNC Doux Élevage, Société Coopérative Agricole UKL-ARREE

Defendants: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

Question referred

Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in the light of Case C-345/02 Pearle BV and Others, be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a national authority extends to all the traders in a sector an agreement which, like the agreement made within the Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF), introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement certain activities — publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, quality assurance activities, research activities, activities in defence of the sector’s interests, and the use of studies and consumer panels — is, in view of the nature of the activities in question, the methods by which they are financed and the conditions of their implementation, related to State aid?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/8

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 30 November 2011 — Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer v Anneliese Kuso

(Case C-614/11)

2012/C 80/10

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Niederösterreichische Landes-Landwirtschaftskammer

Defendant: Anneliese Kuso

Question referred

Does Article 3(1)(a) and (c) of Directive 76/207/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, preclude national legislation under which discrimination on grounds of sex in connection with the termination of an employment relationship which is effected solely by lapse of time pursuant to a fixed-term individual employment contract entered into before the entry into force of the above directive (in this case before Austria’s accession to the European Union) is to be examined not on the basis of a contractual provision stipulating the fixed term to be a ‘condition governing dismissal’ but only in connection with the rejection of the request for a contract extension as a ‘condition governing recruitment’?

(1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40, and amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 September 2002.