ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 313/13

Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-496/13 P)

2013/C 313/24

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-78/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 in Case R 2109/2010-1;

— Order the respondent to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant puts forward as its single ground of appeal the incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and failure to have regard to the rules of evidence in the application of that provision.

In support of that ground of appeal the appellant submits:

In comparing the signs the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment doctrine because it made a sweeping comparison of the elements ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in doing so left out all the other elements of the marks.

In particular, the General Court would, if it had applied the global assessment doctrine correctly, have had to attach more importance to some of the other elements of the marks at issue, inter alia the combination of colours in the disputed mark and the opposing mark and the description ‘LA’ in the opposing mark and ‘brunes’ in the disputed mark.

In addition, the General Court incorrectly applied the principles set out by the Court of Justice in respect of conceptual similarity as it did not take sufficient account of the different languages of the marks.

Furthermore, the General Court failed to have regard to the rules of evidence set out in the Rules of Procedure in that it made assumptions with regard to the pronunciation of the mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ without evidence and based the decision on them.

All in all, the General Court thus came to an incorrect conclusion.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein v Uta Wree

(Case C-422/13)

2013/C 304/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Landesamt für Landwirtschaft, Umwelt und ländliche Räume des Landes Schleswig-Holstein

Defendant: Uta Wree

Question referred

Is there also an agricultural area within the meaning of Article 34(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) of 19 January 2009 if that area, although also used for agricultural purposes (grazing for sheep farming purposes), forms the cover layer of a landfill site in after-care?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 325/16

Appeal brought on 16 September 2013 by GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-205/12 GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-494/13 P)

2013/C 325/28

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Villiger Söhne GmbH

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 in Case T-205/12 and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 March 2012 in Case R 387/2011-1;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant puts forward a single plea in law, namely misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. (1)

In support of that plea, the appellant alleges that:

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘identity of the goods’ because it equated the goods ‘cigars’ with the generic term ‘tobacco products’. By so doing, the General Court unduly extended the scope of the opposing mark.

The General Court misinterpreted the term ‘similarity of the goods’ because in assessing the similarity of the goods it also should not have sweepingly considered the individual goods ‘cigars’ to be similar to the generic term ‘smokers’ articles’.

When comparing the signs, the General Court did not correctly apply the global assessment theory because it sweepingly compared the components ‘LIBERTAD’ and ‘LIBERTE’ and in so doing took no account of all the other components of the marks.

In particular, several other components of the marks at issue have dominant aspects, including the colour combination of the mark at issue and the opposing figurative mark and the ‘LA’ label.

The General Court also misapplied the principles established by the Court of Justice on conceptual similarity since it did not sufficiently take into account the different languages of the marks.

Overall, the General Court thereby came to a wrong conclusion.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark; OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.
3.

Does it make a difference to the answer to the first and second questions that, following the notification of the customs duties payable, portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period, even though the result of such an examination would have had no bearing on the fact that the results obtained by the laboratory used by the customs authorities could not be verified, with the result that even in that case it would have been impossible for the court — if that other laboratory were to find in favour of the origin claimed by the party concerned — to compare the results of the two laboratories with respect to their reliability? If so, must the customs authorities point out to the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/46

Action brought on 6 September 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-479/13)

2013/C 344/80

Language of the case: French

Parties

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

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— declare that, by applying a VAT rate of 3 % to digital books (or electronic books), the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fufil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98, 110 and 114 of the VAT directive, (1) read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and its implementing regulation; (2)

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission raises a single plea in law in support of its action, alleging that, by subjecting the supply of electronic books to a super-reduced rate of 7 % from 1 January 2012, then of 5.5 % from 1 January 2013, the national legislation is not compatible with the VAT directive.

The Commission claims that under the first subparagraph of Article 98(2) of the VAT directive, reduced rates of VAT may be applied only to the supplies of goods and services referred to in Annex III to that directive. Category 6 of Annex III to the VAT directive does not mention the supply of digital books as being capable of being subject to a reduced rate of VAT. The Commission infers from that that the supply of electronic books must therefore be subject to the normal rate of VAT in accordance with Article 96 of the VAT directive. That is also confirmed, according to the Commission, by the second subparagraph of Article 98(2), which explicitly excludes electronically supplied services from the benefit of reduced rates of VAT. Finally, in support of its action, the Commission claims that the VAT Committee unanimously adopted, on 9 February 2011, guidelines according to which reduced rates of VAT do not apply to the supply of digital books.

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

(2) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for the VAT directive (OJ 2011 L 77, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 336/10

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 September 2013 — Thi Ly Pham

(Case C-474/13)

2013/C 336/21

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Thi Ly Pham

Authority involved: Stadt Schweinfurt, Amt für Meldewesen und Statistik

Question referred

Is it consistent with Article 16(1) 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) to place a pre-deportation detainee in accommodation together with prisoners if he consents to such accommodation?

(1) OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
1.

Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR I-0000] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?
1.

Is Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted, in the spirit of the European legal tradition, as authorising every bearer of that right to choose whether to make use of or refuse access to preventative healthcare together with the possibility of using medical care without regard to the mandatory conditions set out in national laws and procedures, or does the public interest in ensuring a high level of health protection for European Union citizens not enable individuals to make that choice?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 359/5

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 7 October 2013 — Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-526/13)

2013/C 359/07

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Question referred

Must Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that paragraph concerning exemption from VAT are applicable not only to supplies to the operator of a vessel used for navigation on the high seas, who uses those goods for provisioning the vessel, but also to supplies other than to the operator of the vessel, that is to say, to undisclosed intermediaries, where at the time of the supply the ultimate use of the goods is known in advance and duly established, and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the legislative requirements?

(1) Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Do the costs of the operation to remove the product and implant another ICD constitute damage caused by personal injury for the purposes of Article 1 and point (a) of the first sentence of Article 9 of Directive 85/374/EEC?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 377/6

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 10 October 2013 — Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v Maria Patmanidi SA

(Case C-535/13)

2013/C 377/13

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant: Maria Patmanidi SA

Question referred

What is the scope of the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 89/104/ΕEC (1) (now Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/ΕC) (2) and of Article 13 of Regulation (ΕC) 40/94/ΕC (3) (now Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) (4) in relation to the right of a trade mark proprietor to prohibit parallel imports into the EU and the EEA of its products which were first supplied or put on the market in a country outside the EU and the EEA, especially in the case of products with a large profit margin and price squeezing, as evidenced by large fluctuations in pricing policy, and/or where parallel imports may result in considerable reductions in prices to end consumers, for their benefit and the benefit of competition, as in the case of all types of spare parts for motor vehicles, in light of the effect, in isolation or combination, of: (a) the provisions of Articles 101and 102 TFEU; (b) the provisions of Articles I, XI.1, ΙΙΙ.4 and XX(d) and GATT 1994 law in general; and (c) Articles I and [Χ]XIV GΑΤΤ 1994, especially as they extend the scope of the provisions of Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC and of Article 13(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 207/2009 to products put on the market in contracting parties of the GΑΤΤ 1994 and reciprocity issues arise between them?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1988 L 40. p. 1).

(2) Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 28, p. 18).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
1.

Can an indirect distinction on the basis of nationality or an impediment to the free movement of workers — requiring justification — be said to exist if the legislation of a Member State allows the tax-free reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses for incoming workers and a worker who, in the period prior to his employment in that Member State, lived outside that Member State at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from the border of that Member State may, without the provision of further proof, be granted tax-free reimbursement of expenses calculated on a flat-rate basis, even if that amount exceeds the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred, whereas, in the case of a worker who, during that period, lived within a shorter distance of that Member State, the extent of the tax-free reimbursement is limited to the demonstrable actual amount of the extraterritorial expenses?
3.

If so, is this unequal treatment for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive (a) justified in order to accord to persons whose date of birth lies after the date on which school began in the year they started school or to persons who attend a type of school with an extended upper stage and, for that reason, have to attend school after the age of 18 in order to complete their studies the same conditions as to persons who complete intermediate or secondary school before the age of 18, even if the eligibility of periods of school attendance after the age of 18 are not restricted to the abovementioned cases; (b) justified in order to exclude from the entitlement periods in which, in general, no gainful activity takes place and accordingly no contributions are paid? Does such a justification exist irrespective of the fact that at first no contributions are payable also in respect of periods of attendance of intermediate or secondary schools after the age of 18 and in the event of the subsequent crediting of such periods of school attendance a special pension contribution is payable in any case? (c) justified because the exclusion of the crediting of pensionable previous periods completed before the age of 18 is to be regarded as equivalent to setting an ‘age for admission to an occupational social security scheme’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the directive?
4.

To whom must prior notification be given under the second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism? In particular: (a) Is the beneficiary of a patent or supplementary protection certificate limited to persons who have a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certification? or (b) In a case where a group of companies forms a single economic unit comprising a number of legal entities, is it sufficient if the notification is addressed to a legal entity which is the operating subsidiary and marketing authorisation holder in the Member State of importation rather than the entity within the group that has a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certificate, on the basis either that such legal entity may be characterised as a beneficiary of the patent or SPC, or that it is to be expected that such notification in the ordinary course of events will to come to the attention of the persons who make decisions on behalf of the patent or SPC holder? (c) If the answer to Question 4(b) is yes, is a notification which is otherwise compliant rendered non-compliant if it is addressed to the ‘the Manager, Regulatory Affairs’ of a company when that company is not the entity within the group that has a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certificate but is the operating subsidiary or marketing authorisation holder in the Member State of importation and when that Regulatory Affairs department in practice regularly receives notifications from parallel importers regarding the Specific Mechanism and other matters?
2.

If so, what requirements does the principle of equal treatment in Article 39(2) EC (now Article 45(2) TFEU) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 impose on the assimilation of part-time work for older employees completed under the legislation of the other Member State as a condition of entitlement to a national old-age pension: (a) Is a comparative examination of the conditions for part-time work for older employees needed? (b) If so, is it sufficient that the part-time work for older employees in both Member States is essentially the same in content, in terms of its functioning and structure? (c) Or must the conditions for part-time work for older employees in both Member States be identical in content?
4.

If Directive 2006/114 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is applicable in accordance with Question 3, under what basic conditions do the measures under consideration before the Stockholms tingsrätt (use or attachment of a product name, product number and ATC code for the medicinal product, application of a fixed price for the medicinal product, supply of information on the medicinal product in the National Substance Register for Medicinal Products (NPL), attachment of an NPL identifier to the medicinal product, dissemination of an information sheet on the medicinal product and information thereon via an electronic health care ordering service and via an undertakings’ own homepage, supply of information on the medicinal product via a publication issued by a national trade organisation, supply of information on the medicinal product in the Apoteket’s Central Product Register and the associated register (JACA), supply of information on the medicinal product in another national information database for medicinal products (SIL), supply of information via the Apoteket Terminal System (ATS) or similar dispensing system, provision of information on an undertakings own or a competing supplier’s medicinal product in correspondence with doctors’ surgeries and patient organisations, marketing of the medicinal product, measures relating to pharmaceutical checks on the medicinal product and competing medicinal products, failure to notify documented and relevant differences between products, failure to notify the contents of an undertaking’s own medicinal product and the assessment of the medicinal product by the Läkemedelsverket (Swedish Medical Products Agency), failure to inform the health care service of the Läkemedelsverket’s scientific advisory board’s assessment of competing products, to maintain a fixed price level for the medicinal product, to set a validity period of three (3) months for a prescription, to dispense the medicinal product from a pharmacy instead of a competing medicinal product despite the fact that the patient has a prescription for that competing product, and to hinder and prevent market transfers of standardised preparations to the competing medicinal product, including local pharmacies refusing delivery of the competing medicinal product, and application of a fixed price as part of the scheme under which medicines are eligible for subsidies without a prior decision from the national authority) constitute advertising within the meaning of Directive 2006/114?
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 31/4

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 November 2013 — Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

(Case C-580/13)

2014/C 31/04

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH

Defendant: Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg

Question referred

Must Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, allows a banking institution to refuse, by invoking banking secrecy, to provide information pursuant to Article 8(1)(c) of that directive concerning the name and address of an account holder?

(1) Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).