ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/13

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — United Kingdom) — Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani v Secretary of State for the Home Department

(Case C-529/11) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 12 - Divorced spouse of a national of a Member State who has worked in another Member State - Adult child pursuing his studies in the host Member State - Right of residence of parent who is national of a non-Member State - Directive 2004/38/EC - Articles 16 to 18 - Right of permanent residence of family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State - Legal residence - Residence based on Article 12 above)

2013/C 225/20

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Olaitan Ajoke Alarape, Olukayode Azeez Tijani

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Intervening party: AIRE Centre

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London — Interpretation of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2) — Right of residence, following her divorce from a national of another Member State having exercised his right to free movement, of a national of a non-Member State responsible for care of her child, the latter being more than 21 years old and studying in the host Member State — Meaning of ‘parent who is primary carer for a child’ — Criteria for assessment

Operative part of the judgment

1. The parent of a child who has attained the age of majority and who has obtained access to education on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, as amended by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, may continue to have a derived right of residence under that article if that child remains in need of the presence and care of that parent in order to be able to continue and to complete his or her education, which it is for the referring court to assess, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before it;

2. Periods of residence in a host Member State which are completed by family members of a Union citizen who are not nationals of a Member State solely on the basis of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68, as amended by Directive 2004/38, where the conditions laid down for entitlement to a right of residence under that directive are not satisfied, may not be taken into consideration for the purposes of acquisition by those family members of a right of permanent residence under that directive.

(1) OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 225/17

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-635/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/56/EC - Cross-border mergers of limited liability companies - Article 16(2)(a) and (b) - Company resulting from a cross-border merger - Employees employed in the Member State where the company has its registered office or in other Member States - Participation rights - Failure to provide identical rights)

2013/C 225/28

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Schillemans and C. Wissels, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 16(2)(b) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies (OJ 2005 L 310, p. 1) — Employee participation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure that the employees of establishments of a company resulting from a cross-border merger which has its registered office in the Netherlands, situated in other Member States enjoy participation rights identical to those enjoyed by the employees employed in the Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under point (b) of Article 16(2) of Directive 2005/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies.

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.
4.

The concept of ‘reproductions effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects’ within the meaning of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as including reproductions effected using a printer and a personal computer, where the two are linked together. In this case, it is open to the Member States to put in place a system in which the fair compensation is paid by the persons in possession of a device contributing, in a non-autonomous manner, to the single process of reproduction of the protected work or other subject-matter on the given medium, in so far as those persons have the possibility of passing on the cost of the levy to their customers, provided that the overall amount of the fair compensation owed as recompense for the harm suffered by the author at the end of that single process must not be substantially different from the amount fixed for a reproduction obtained by means of a single device.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/9

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallis K.-Vallis A. & Co. OE

(Case C-621/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for registration of the Community word mark FISHBONE - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national figurative mark FISHBONE BEACHWEAR - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Taking into account additional evidence not submitted within the time-limit set - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 42(2) and (3) and Article 76(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 22(2))

2013/C 260/16

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG, formerly New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH (represented by: V. Spitz, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent), Vallis K. — Vallis A. & Co. O.E

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 2011 in Case T-415/09 New Yorker SHK Jeans v OHIM by which that court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘FISHBONE’, for goods in Classes 18 and 25, against decision R 1051/2008-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 July 2009, rejecting in part the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part registration of that mark in the context of the opposition formed by the proprietor of the national mark ‘FISHBONE BEACHWEAR’ for the goods in Class 25, and the national sign ‘Fishbone’ used in business — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Taking into account additional evidence

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders New Yorker SHK Jeans GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/11

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-601/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 - Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down - Precautionary principle - Level of protection of human health - New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk - Failure to state reasons - Distortion of the facts - Error of law)

2013/C 252/17

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, C. Candat, R. Loosli-Surrans, G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11) in so far as it authorises monitoring and eradication measures less restrictive than those previously prescribed for ovine and caprine flocks — Failure to state the reasons for the decision — Distortion of the facts — Incorrect legal classification of the facts — Breach of the precautionary principle

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/15

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-610/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark CENTROTHERM - Genuine use - Evidence - Sworn statement - Burden of proof - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Additional evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15, 51 and 76 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 40(5))

2013/C 344/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, Rechtsanwälte, and by F. Schmidt, Patentanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG (represented by O. Löffel and P. Lange, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 September 2011, in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM, in which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4), in so far as it granted the application for revocation of the CENTROTHERM mark — Genuine use of the mark — Proof

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 September 2011 in Case T-434/09 Centrotherm Systemtechnik v OHIM — centrotherm Clean Solutions (CENTROTHERM);

2. Annuls point 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 August 2009 (Case R 6/2008-4);

3. Orders Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH, the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and centrotherm Clean Solutions GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs at first instance and on appeal.

(1) OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 260/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover, Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover (C-523/11), and Philipp Seeberger v Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C-585/11)

(Joined Cases C-523/11 and C-585/11) (1)

(Citizenship of the Union - Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU - Right of freedom of movement and residence - Education or training grant awarded to nationals of a Member State in order to pursue their studies in another Member State - Requirement of residence in the home Member State for at least three years prior to the commencement of studies)

2013/C 260/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover, Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Laurence Prinz (C-523/11), Philipp Seeberger (C-585/11)

Defendants: Region Hannover (C-523/11), and Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C-585/11)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Hannover — Interpretation of Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Receipt of an education or training grant (‘Ausbildungsförderung’) — National rules limiting receipt of that grant to one year for citizens who pursue their studies abroad and reside for less than three years prior to the commencement of their studies in a national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which makes the award of an education grant for studies in another Member State for a period of more than one year subject to a sole condition, such as that laid down in Paragraph 16(3) of the Federal Law on assistance for education and training [Bundesgesetz über individuelle Förderung der Ausbildung (Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz)], as amended on 1 January 2008, by the twenty-second law amending the Federal Law on assistance for education and training, requiring the applicant to have had a permanent residence, within the meaning of that law, in national territory for at least three years before commencing those studies.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.

OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/7

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 September 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-293/11) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 306 to 310 - Special regime for travel agencies - Differences between language versions - National legislation providing for the application of the special regime to persons other than travellers - Concepts of ‘traveller’ and ‘client’)

2013/C 344/09

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents); Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents); Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation under which the special regime for taxation of travel agents applies to transactions carried out by travel agents for recipients other than travellers

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the Hellenic Republic;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/17

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — Belgium) — Martin y Paz Diffusion SA v David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

(Case C-661/11) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5 - Consent on the part of the proprietor of a trade mark to the use, by a third party, of a sign which is identical with that mark - Consent given in a situation where there is shared use - Possibility for that proprietor to put an end to the shared use and regain the exclusive use of its mark)

2013/C 344/28

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin y Paz Diffusion SA

Defendants: David Depuydt, Fabriek van Maroquinerie Gauquie NV

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and Article 8(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Proprietor’s rights over a registered mark where there is an extended period of sharing the use of the mark with a third party in a form of co-ownership for part of the goods covered and irrevocable consent given by the proprietor to that third party to use of that mark — National rule prohibiting the proprietor of the mark from making wrongful or abusive use of its right — Prohibition of use of the mark by the proprietor to the detriment of the third party — Penalty

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, precludes a proprietor of trade marks which, in a situation where there has been use shared with a third party, had consented to the use by that third party of signs which are identical to its marks in respect of certain goods in classes for which those marks are registered and which no longer consents to that use, from being deprived of any possibility of asserting the exclusive right conferred upon it by those marks against that third party and of itself exercising that exclusive right in respect of goods which are identical to those of that third party.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/4

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration v European Commission

(Case C-447/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Calculation of the fine - Duration of the infringement - Limitation period - Mitigating circumstances)

2014/C 45/07

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration (represented by: C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: Di Bucci, L Malferrari, R. Striani and B. Gencarelli, agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-192/06 Caffaro v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as in it the Commission imposes a joint and several fine on the applicant and SNIA SpA, or a reduction of the fine — Fines — Equal treatment — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Caffaro Srl, placed under special administration, to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/2

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Council of the European Union v Access Info Europe, Hellenic Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-280/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Right of access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(3), first subparagraph - Protection of the institutions’ decision-making process - Note from the Council General Secretariat on the proposals submitted in the course of the legislative process for the revision of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Partial access - Refusal of access to information relating to the identity of Member States which put forward proposals)

2013/C 367/02

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, Agents)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Access Info Europe (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, advocaten), Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Intervener in support of Access Info Europe: European Parliament (represented by A. Caiola and M. Dean, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of 22 March 2011 in Case T-233/09 Access Info Europe v Council by which the General Court (Third Chamber) annulled the Council's decision of 26 February 2009 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to a note drawn up by the Council General Secretariat and addressed to the Working Party on Information (Document No 16338/08), concerning a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by Access Info Europe;

3. Orders the Czech Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.