ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 118/7

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

(Case C-166/11) (1)

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Directive 85/577/EEC - Scope - Not included - Unit-linked insurance contracts)

2012/C 118/11

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ángel Lorenzo González Alonso

Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself

Operative part of the judgment

A contract concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium to be invested, in varying proportions, in fixed-rate investments, variable-rate investments and financial investment products of the company offering the contract falls outside the scope of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, in accordance with Article 3(2)(d) thereof.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 73/5

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Nike International Ltd, Aurelio Muñoz Molina

(Case C-53/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 58 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rules 49 and 50 - Word mark R10 - Opposition - Assignment - Admissibility of an appeal - Concept of ‘person entitled to appeal’ - Applicability of the OHIM Guidelines)

2012/C 73/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Nike International Ltd (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, abogado), Aurelio Muñoz Molina

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Aurelio Muñoz Molina, whereby the General Court annulled the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2010 in Case T-137/09 Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R10) in so far as in that judgment, the General Court, in breach of Article 58 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006, and Rule 49 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Regulation No 40/94, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1041/2005 of 29 June 2005, held that the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in its decision of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), infringed Rules 31(6) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended by Regulation No 1041/2005, by declaring the appeal brought by Nike International Ltd to be inadmissible;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 151/8

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz — Germany) — Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading GmbH v Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)

(Case C-1/11) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 18(1) and (4) - Shipments of certain waste - Article 3(2) - Mandatory information - Identity of waste producers - Information not provided by the intermediary dealer - Protection of business secrets)

2012/C 151/15

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Mainz

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interseroh Scrap and Metals Trading GmbH

Defendant: Sonderabfall-Management-Gesellschaft Rheinland-Pfalz mbH (SAM)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Mainz — Interpretation of Article 18(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1) — Document appearing in Annex VII to that regulation and containing details accompanying the transportation of certain waste — Right of an intermediary not to disclose in that document the identity of the waste producer in order to protect its customers with regard to the buyer

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 18(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 308/2009 of 15 April 2009, must be interpreted as not permitting an intermediary dealer arranging a shipment of waste not to disclose the name of the waste producer to the consignee of the shipment, as provided for in Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006 in conjunction with Annex VII to that regulation, even though such non-disclosure might be necessary in order to protect the business secrets of that intermediary dealer;

2. Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, must be interpreted as requiring an intermediary dealer, in the context of a shipment of waste covered by that provision, to complete Field 6 of the document contained in Annex VII to Regulation No 1013/2006, as amended by Regulation No 308/2009, and transmit it to the consignee, without any possibility of the scope of that requirement being restricted by a right to protection of business secrets.

(1) OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
1.

Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly the conditions governing the derogations laid down in Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under that provision;
2.

Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 250/6

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-135/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Public access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 - Article 4(5) - Scope - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents - Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting - Production of the document to the European Union judicature)

2012/C 250/10

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission dismissing the application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2008 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to documents transmitted to the Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission;

2. Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the application brought by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH for the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2008 refusing to grant it access to a document transmitted to the European Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

3. Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/9

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

(Case C-112/11) (1)

(Transport - Air transport - Common rules for the operation of air services in the European Union - Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 - Obligation on the person selling air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis - Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ - Price of flight cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company and forming part of the overall price)

2012/C 295/14

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ebookers.com Deutschland GmbH

Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (Recast) (OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3) — Obligation on the seller of the air travel to ensure that the customer’s acceptance of the optional price supplements is on an opt-in basis — Concept of ‘optional price supplements’ — Price of cancellation insurance provided by an independent insurance company, forming part of the overall price and charged to the passenger at the same time as the price of the flight

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of ‘optional price supplements’, referred to in the last sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers costs, connected with the air travel, arising from services, such as the flight cancellation insurance at issue in the main proceedings, supplied by a party other than the air carrier and charged to the customer by the person selling that travel, together with the air fare, as part of a total price.

(1) OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/10

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Maurizio Giovanardi and Others

(Case C-79/11) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Directive 2004/80/EC - Compensation to victims of crime - Liability of a legal person - Compensation in criminal proceedings)

2012/C 287/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Firenze

Parties in the main proceedings

Maurizio Giovanardi, Andrea Lastini, Filippo Ricci, Vito Piglionica, Massimiliano Pempori, Gezim Lakja, Elettrifer Srl, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Firenze — Interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 9 of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15) — Criminal liability of legal persons — Right of a victim of a criminal act to be compensated, in the context of criminal proceedings, by a legal person indirectly liable for the harm suffered

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that, under a system governing the liability of legal persons such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that provision does not preclude a situation in which the victim of a criminal act is not entitled to seek compensation for the harm directly caused by that act in the course of criminal proceedings from the legal person who committed an administrative offence.

(1) OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens, Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler, Jean Paul François Caroline Votron v Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas, Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing BV, Kortekaas Pensioen BV, Dirk Robbard De Kat, Johannes Hendrikus Visch, Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink, Laminco GLD N-A, Ageas NV, formerly Fortis NV

(Case C-170/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 - Cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters - Matters covered - Hearing by the court of a Member State of a witness who is a party in the main proceedings residing in another Member State - Possibility to summon a party as a witness before the competent court in accordance with the law of its Member State)

(2012/C 331/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maurice Robert Josse Marie Ghislain Lippens, Gilbert Georges Henri Mittler, Jean Paul François Caroline Votron

Defendants: Hendrikus Cornelis Kortekaas, Kortekaas Entertainment Marketing BV, Kortekaas Pensioen BV, Dirk Robbard De Kat, Johannes Hendrikus Visch, Euphemia Joanna Bökkerink, Laminco GLD N-A, Ageas NV, formerly Fortis NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1) — Score — Hearing of witnesses by Netherlands courts of witnesses who are also parties to the main proceedings but not resident in the Netherlands — Domestic procedural law

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, in particular Article 1(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the competent court of a Member State which wishes to hear as a witness a party residing in another Member State, has the option, in order to perform such a hearing, to summon that party before it and hear him in accordance with the law of its Member State.

(1) OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 295/12

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Fortuna sp. z o.o. (C-213/11), Grand sp. z o.o. (C-214/11), Forta sp. z o.o. (C-217/11) v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

(Joined Cases C-213/11, C-214/11 and C-217/11) (1)

(Internal market - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Low-prize gaming machines - Prohibition of the amendment, extension and issue of operating authorisations - Concept of ‘technical regulation’)

2012/C 295/19

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Fortuna sp. z o.o. (C-213/11), Grand sp. z o.o. (C-214/11), Forta sp. z o.o. (C-217/11)

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku — Interpretation of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37) — Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — National provision prohibiting the amendment of an operating authorisation for low-prize gaming machines in respect of a change of the place in which those machines are installed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions, such as those of the Law on games of chance (ustawa o grach hazardowich) of 19 November 2009, which could have the effect of limiting, or even gradually rendering impossible, the running of gaming on low-prize machines anywhere other than in casinos and gaming arcades are capable of constituting ‘technical regulations’, within the meaning of that provision, the drafts of which must be the subject of communication as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the directive, in so far as it is established that those provisions constitute conditions which can significantly influence the nature or the marketing of the product concerned, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.

(1) OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 366/16

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-550/11) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduction - Adjustment - Theft of goods)

2012/C 366/26

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: PIGI — Pavleta Dimova ET

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane I upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad — Varna — Interpretation of Article 185(2) 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 tax practice under which the VAT deducted as input tax on the acquisition of goods must be adjusted if the goods are stolen — Concept of theft duly proved or confirmed

Operative part of the judgment

Article 185(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding national tax provisions, such as those contained in Articles 79 and 80 of the Law on value added tax (Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost), which require, where a shortfall in the goods subject to value added tax has been established, that an adjustment be made to the deduction of that input tax at the time of acquisition of those goods, where the taxable person was the victim of a theft of those goods and the perpetrator has not been identified.

(1) OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 355/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

(Case C-28/11) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Customs warehousing procedure - Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation - Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)

2012/C 355/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse — Whether arising of the customs debt admissible as the penalty for that failure

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of non-Community goods, non-fulfilment of the obligation to enter the removal of the goods from the customs warehouse in the appropriate stock records, at the latest when the goods leave the customs warehouse, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of those goods, even if they have been re-exported.

(1) OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.