ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
2.

Whether the answer to the first question is affirmative or negative, may the concept of claims relating to a contract in Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted in such a way that, having regard exclusively to the content of the document as such, it extends also to claims under a promissory note issued in incomplete form brought by the payee against the giver of the aval for the maker of the note?
—

Set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision in so far as, with reference to the period May — September 1997, they fail to recognise the lesser gravity of Ausimont’s conduct, on account of the fact that it did not participate in the agreement on the limitation of capacity and in so far as they place Ausimont in an incorrect category for the purpose of determining the basic amount of the fine and, accordingly, recalculate the amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the decision; or
First, it is submitted, there has been a breach of the third and fourth paragraphs of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice by reason of misinterpretation thereof. The provisions of European Union law do not harmonise the permissible forms in which legal services may be provided. Nor does Article 19 of the Statute introduce restrictions in this area, referring instead directly to national provisions. In the Republic of Poland’s view, Article 19 of the Statute does not provide any basis for generally and arbitrarily depriving legal advisers who provide legal assistance pursuant to their contract of employment of their right to represent parties before the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the provisions of Polish law guarantee their full independence.
1.

Do the benefits of the Directive (1) mean recognition as a refugee, or either of the two forms of protection covered by the Directive (recognition as a refugee and the grant of subsidiary protection), according to the choice made by the Member State, or, possibly, neither automatically but merely inclusion within the scope ratione personae of the Directive?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 347/18

Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by Toshiba Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2011 in Case T-113/07: Toshiba Corp. v European Commission

(Case C-498/11 P)

2011/C 347/28

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Toshiba Corp. (represented by: J.F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, A. Dawes, Solicitor, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal insofar as it rejected Toshiba's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision, and annul the contested Decision;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice as to points of law; and, in any event,

— award Toshiba its costs, including its costs in the proceedings before the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the General Court committed several errors in law when it rejected its claim for annulment of Article 1 of the Decision:

a) it erred in law in concluding that the witness statements furnished by ABB were capable of proving the existence of a common understanding;

b) it erred in law in concluding that there was both corroborating evidence and indirect evidence of the existence of a common understanding;

c) it erred in law in finding that Toshiba participated both in a single and in a continuous infringement; and
(a)

Is Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 concerning VAT to be interpreted as precluding the Portuguese tax authorities from requiring the appellant, a holding company, to use the pro rata deduction method for all the VAT incurred in its inputs, on the basis of the fact that the main corporate purpose of that company is the management of shareholdings of other companies, even when such inputs (acquired services) have a direct, immediate and unequivocal relationship with taxable transactions — supplies of services — which are carried out downstream in the context of the complementary activity of supplying legally permitted, technical management services?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/9

Action brought on 22 September 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-485/11)

2011/C 355/15

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that by introducing an additional charge on operators of electronic communications by Article 33 of Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on audiovisual communication, (1) the French Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. (2)

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its action, the Commission questions the compatibility of Article 302 bis KH of the General Tax Code, introduced par Article 33 of Law No 2009-258 of 5 March 2009 on audiovisual communication and the new public television service, with the Authorisations Directive. By imposing a charge on undertakings operating an electronic communications network or providing an electronic communications service under the general authorisation, the defendant infringes in particular Article 12 of the directive. The Commission does not accept the argument of the national authorities that Article 12 relates solely to charges which the States may impose ‘in respect of’ the issue of a licence or a process linked to the procedure of authorising operators of electronic communications. According to the applicant, the objective of Article 12 is in fact to encompass any form of ‘administrative’ charge, in other words linked to all costs engendered by the management, monitoring and enforcement of the authorisation scheme, and not only those linked to the issue of authorisation.

(1) JORF No 0056, p. 4321.

(2) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
1.

Are the provisions of Article 45(1) and (2) of Council Regulation 44/2001/EC (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a court in the Member State in which recognition is sought may, in the appeal procedure under Article 45, refuse an application for a declaration of enforceability of a foreign judgment if the certificate referred to in Article 54 of that Regulation was issued without the conditions contained in Article 66(2)(a) or (b) thereof having been met?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 13/2

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 22 August 2011 — Cartiaux Service Plus SA v Belgian State

(Case C-432/11)

2012/C 13/04

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Namur

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Cartiaux Service Plus SA

Defendant: Belgian State

By order of 9 November 2011, the President of the Court ordered that the case be removed from the Register.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 4 November 2011 — Maria Kozak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie

(Case C-557/11)

(2012/C 25/63)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Maria Kozak

Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lublinie (Director of the Tax Chamber, Lublin)

Question referred

Where an in-house transport service is supplied by a travel agent within the framework of an all-inclusive price which is charged to a tourist for a tourist service supplied to him that is taxed under Articles 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) which lay down a special VAT scheme for travel agents, is that in-house transport service taxable — as a necessary element for the supply of that tourist service — at the standard rate of tax applicable to tourist services, or at the reduced rate of tax applicable to passenger transport services under Article 98 of that directive, in conjunction with point 5 of Annex III thereto?

(1) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 32/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA

(Case C-594/11)

2012/C 32/27

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christoph Becker

Defendant: Société Air France SA

Question referred

Is a passenger entitled to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if the departure time of a flight has been delayed for a period of time falling within the limits defined in Article 6(1) of the regulation, but the flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours after the scheduled time of arrival?

(1) 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).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2011 — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

(Case C-544/11)

(2012/C 25/57)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen

Defendant: Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

Question referred

Is a legal provision compatible with Article 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (in the version of the Nice Treaty signed on 26 February 2001; now Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) if it makes a tax exemption for income of an employee who is taxable in Germany dependent on the employer being established in Germany, but does not provide for such exemption if the employer is established in another EU Member State?
—

set aside the judgment of the General Court inasmuch as it dismisses the action which sought cessation of any obligation on the part of the appellant to refund sums paid within the framework of the project LIFE97/ENV/GR/000380 or, in the alternative, amendment of the contested measure so as to oblige the appellant to pay EUR 93 795,32, the sum determined for accounting purposes as the ineligible expenditure, as the Commission itself acknowledged;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/7

Action brought on 18 October 2011 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-530/11)

2012/C 39/11

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, L. Armati, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to transpose fully and apply correctly Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EC (2) and 96/61/EC (3), the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to Articles 3(7) and 4(4) of Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, judicial proceedings relating to environmental matters must not be prohibitively expensive. This implements Article 9(4) of the Aarhus convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters which has been concluded by the Union and most of the Member States.

The Commission claims that the United Kingdom has failed to transpose these provisions in all three of its jurisdictions (England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland).

On an analysis of the rules and practice applicable in those jurisdictions and an examination of the concept of ‘prohibitively expensive’ proceedings, the Commission also maintains that the United Kingdom has failed to apply those provisions correctly.

(1) Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission

OJ L 156, p. 17

(2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment

OJ L 175, p. 40

(3) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

OJ L 257, p. 26
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/2

Appeal brought on 29 July 2011 by Zdeněk Altner against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 July 2011 in Case T-190/11 Altner v Commission

(Case C-411/11 P)

2012/C 65/02

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Appellant: Zdeněk Altner (represented by: J. Čapek, advokát)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 15 December 2012 the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Z. Altner to bear his own costs.
—

Exercise its full Jurisdiction and annul DG EAC's decision to select the bids of the Appellant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders EAC/01/2008 for external service provision for educational programmes (ESP-ISEP) (OJ 2008/S 158-212752) Lot 1 for the ‘IS Development and Maintenance’ and Lot 2 for ‘IS Studies, Testing, Training & Support’, as second contractor in the cascade mechanism, communicated to the Appellant by two separate letters dated 12 May 2009, as well as the request for damages according to ex Articles 225, 235 and 288 EC (now 256, 268 and 340 TFEU) for the damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of 9 544 480 Euro (3 945 040 Euro for Lot 1 and 5 599 440 Euro for Lot 2).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 65/7

Appeal brought on 20 December 2011 by Seven for all mankind LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2011 in Case T-176/10: Seven SpA v Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-655/11 P)

2012/C 65/14

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Seven for all mankind LLC (represented by: A. Gautier-Sauvagnac, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 6 October 2011, notified on October 7, 2011 (Case T-176/10),

— Confirm the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of January 28, 2010, notified on February 15, 2010 (Case R 1514/2008-2),

— Order Seven SpA to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Seven For All Mankind, in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

— Firstly, the General Court committed a breach of procedure affecting the interests of the Appellant when assessing the distinctive character of the word SEVEN
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/4

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

(Case C-667/11)

2012/C 89/06

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

Questions referred

1. Is the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (1) of 18 July 2011 permissible, without a customs registration — except for the customs registration of the Single Administrative Document in the BIMIS system — taking place with the registration of the TARIC additional code which is mentioned in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2) of 26 January 2009?

2. What is, in accordance with recital 18 of Regulation No 966/2010, (3) the appropriate amount for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty during the execution of Regulation No 723/2011?

(1) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

(3) Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29).
3.

Does Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 apply also to defendants not domiciled in the European Union? If that question is answered in the affirmative, does this also apply where, in the defendant’s State of domicile, pursuant to a bilateral convention with the State determining the claim, recognition of the judgment might be refused for lack of jurisdiction?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 133/14

Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-599/11 P)

2012/C 133/25

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought

— Set aside the judgment under appeal;

— order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.

In the appellant’s view the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.

First, the General Court erred in law in determining, under new criteria, that there was a likelihood of confusion in the light of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. According to the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient, in order for the existence of a conceptual similarity to be established, that both terms are taken from a common overarching term, and that, although conceptually different, they do not contrast with each other, which is inconsistent with existing case-law.

Second, the General Court erred in law in determining that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking all the relevant and accepted criteria for the assessment of the similarity of trade marks into account. In the present case, the only common element is at the end of the mark cited in opposition. According to settled case-law, consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trade mark than to the end.
3.

Is Article 101(1) TFEU (formerly Article 81(1) EC) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of the representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative, who has (or may have) taken part in that agreement, to the conduct of one of the undertaking’s employees, where the undertaking has not distanced itself from the conduct of that employee and, at the same time, the agreement has even been implemented?
—

annul the Decision of the Council and of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council of 16 June 2011 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part; and on the signing, on behalf of the Union, and provisional application of the Ancillary Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the first part, Iceland, of the second part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the third part, on the application of the Air Transport Agreement between the United States of America, of the first part, the European Union and its Member States, of the second part, Iceland, of the third part, and the Kingdom of Norway, of the fourth part (2011/708/EU) (1);