ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 346/22

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 September 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Jhonny Briot v Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union

(Case C-386/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), second subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract of employment of a temporary worker)

2010/C 346/36

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jhonny Briot

Defendants: Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour du travail de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 1(1), 2(1)(a) and (2)(c), 3(1) and 4(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Non-renewal of a fixed-term employment contract of a temporary agency worker on account of transfer of an undertaking — Possibility of treating a temporary employment agency or, failing that, a Community institution using the services of temporary agency workers like an ‘employer-transferor’ — Possible exclusion of temporary agency workers from the safeguards afforded by the Directive — Obligation or option on the part of the transferee of maintaining the employment relationship

Operative part of the order

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where the fixed-term employment contract of a temporary worker has ended, due to expiry of the agreed term, on a date prior to that of the transfer of the activity to which he was assigned, the non-renewal of this contract because of that transfer does not disregard the prohibition set out in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses. Thus, that temporary worker must not be regarded as still being available to the user company on the date of the transfer.

(1) OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/26

Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) v European Commission

(Case C-341/09 P) (1)

2011/C 252/50

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/2

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad — Bulgaria) — Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v IPN Bulgaria OOD

(Case C-449/09) (1)

(The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Right of the proprietor of a mark to oppose the first placing into circulation within the EEA, without his consent, of goods bearing that mark)

2011/C 89/02

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski gradski sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

Defendant: IPN Bulgaria OOD

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sofiyski gradski sad — Interpretation of Article 5, in conjunction with Article 7 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) — Parallel imports of original goods without the consent of the proprietor of the right conferred by the mark — Possibility for that proprietor to prevent the use in the course of trade, without his consent, of a sign identical to the mark — Proprietor’s right not exhausted

Operative part of the order

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 must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor may oppose the first placing into circulation in the course of trade in the European Economic Area, without his consent, of original goods bearing that mark.

(1) OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 63/16

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Sociedade Unipessoal SL v Fazenda Pública

(Case C-199/10) (1)

(Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Taxation of dividends - Deduction at source - National fiscal legislation which provides for an exemption of dividends paid to resident companies)

2011/C 63/30

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secilpar — Sociedade Unipessoal SL

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Compatibility with Articles 12 EC, 43 EC, 56 EC, 58(3) EC (now Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65(3) TFEU) and with Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) of national fiscal legislation on the taxation of dividends distributed by a resident company to a non-resident company which has a holding in the company paying the dividends of less than 25 % — Taxation by deduction at source at the rate of 15 % provided for by the double taxation agreement concluded between the two Member States at issue — Exemption of dividends paid to resident companies

Operative part of the order

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as precluding a tax scheme under a double-taxation agreement concluded between two Member States, which provides for withholding tax of 15 % on the dividends distributed by a company established in one Member States to a company established in another Member State, where the national legislation of the first Member States exempts from that tax dividends paid to a resident company. It would be otherwise only if the tax withheld at source could be set off against the tax payable in the second Member State in the full amount of the difference in treatment. It is for the national court to determine whether such a neutralisation of the difference in treatment has been effected by the application of all the provisions of the convention for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of the avoidance or evasion of taxes with respect to taxes on income, concluded on 26 October 1993 between the Portuguese republic and the Kingdom of Spain.

(1) OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 30/31

Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-146/10) (1)

()

2011/C 30/54

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 89/13

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-353/10) (1)

2011/C 89/28

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 80/9

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL v European Commission

(Joined Cases C-74/10 P and C-75/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation of a party by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)

2011/C 80/15

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and N. Khan, Agents)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07 EREF v Commission, in which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 declaring that certain sources of finance used by TVO for the construction of a nuclear reactor in Finland (‘Olkiluoto 3 Project’) do not constitute State aid — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

Operative part of the order

1. The appeals are dismissed.

2. European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 173/9

Order of the President of the Court of 9 February 2011 — Nokia Oyj v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Medion AG

(Case C-154/10 P) (1)

2011/C 173/18

Language of the case: Finnish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 120/10

Order of the President of the Court of 3 January 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-396/10) (1)

2011/C 120/25

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/7

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — Dai Cugini NV v Rijkdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

(Case C-151/10) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/811/EC - Equal treatment of part-time and full-time workers - Discrimination - Administrative obstacle likely to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Mandatory publication and retention of contracts and work-schedules)

2011/C 211/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dai Cugini NV

Defendant: Rijkdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeidshof te Antwerpen (Afdeling Hasselt) — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9) — National legislation providing for a system for the publication and monitoring of work schedules of part-time workers, consisting of the mandatory compilation and retention, subject to criminal or administrative penalties, of documents recording the exact duration of work performed by each worker

Operative part of the order

Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued.

It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.

In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 211/7

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 April 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania)) — Daniel Ionel Obreja v Ministerul Economiei și Finanțelor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș (C-136/10), Ministerul Economiei și Finanțelor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Mureș v SC Darmi SRL (C-178/10)

(Joined Cases C-136/10 and C-178/10) (1)

(First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Pollution tax levied upon first registration of motor vehicles)

2011/C 211/11

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Daniel Ionel Obreja (C-136/10), Ministerul Economiei și Finanțelor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Târgu-Mureș (C-178/10)

Defendants: Ministerul Economiei și Finanțelor, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș (C-136/10), SC Darmi SRL (C-178/10)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Târgu-Mureș — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Environmental tax levied on motor vehicles upon first registration in a Member State — Whether national legislation is compatible with Articles 23, 25 and 90 EC — Possible derogation on the basis of Article 174 EC

Operative part of the order

Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a pollution tax affecting motor vehicles on their first registration in that Member State, if that fiscal measure is so designed as to discourage the putting into service, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles bought in other Member States, without, however, discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the national market.

(1) OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/7

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-5/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CANNABIS - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c))

2011/C 252/12

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Giampietro Torresan (represented by: G. Recher and R. Munarini, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, acting as Agent), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and R. Cartella, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Torresan is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/27

Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-428/10) (1)

2011/C 252/59

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/15

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 July 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-536/10 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’)

2011/C 311/22

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision to refuse registration of the word sign ‘ROI ANALYZER’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 — Distinctive character of the mark

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded;

2. MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 252/28

Order of the President of the Court of 8 April 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

(Case C-531/10) (1)

2011/C 252/63

Language of the case: Slovak

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 235/11

Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 7 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

(Case C-542/10) (1)

2012/C 235/22

Language of the case: Polish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) C 30, 29.1.2011.
Order of the Court of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium — Hubert Pagnoul v Belgian State)

(Case C-314/10) (1)

(Articles 92(1), 103(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Reference for a preliminary ruling - Examination of compatibility of national rule both with European Union law and with national Constitution - National legislation requiring preliminary review procedure in case of constitutionality - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Need for a connection with European Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice)

(2012/C 25/37)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hubert Pagnoul

Defendant: Belgian State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 6 TEU, 267 TFEU and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Obligatory preliminary referral to the constitutional court by national courts in cases of presumed infringement of fundamental rights by national legislation — Compatibility with European Union law of the provision of national law requiring that preliminary referral — Possibility for national courts to review compatibility of national rules with international treaties where the constitutional court has declared the national legislation at issue to be compatible with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium).

(1) OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 109/2

Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Aldo Patriciello

(Case C-496/10) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph of the Rules of Procedure - Member of the European Parliament - Protocol on Privileges and Immunities - Article 8 - Criminal proceedings for the offence of insulting behaviour - Statements made outside the precincts of the European Parliament - Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties - Immunity - Conditions)

2012/C 109/03

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro

Criminal proceedings against

Aldo Patriciello

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Venafro — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (OJ 1967 152, p. 13) — Member of the European Parliament charged with the offence of insulting behaviour in consequence of his making false accusations against a representative of the forces of order — Definition of expression of an opinion in the performance of parliamentary duties.

Operative part of the order

Article 8 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted to the effect that a statement made by a Member of the European Parliament beyond the precincts of that institution and giving rise to prosecution in his Member State of origin for the offence of insulting behaviour, does not constitute an opinion expressed in the performance of his parliamentary duties covered by the immunity afforded by that provision unless that statement amounts to a subjective appraisal having a direct, obvious connection with the performance of those duties. It is for the court making the reference to determine whether those conditions have been satisfied in the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 346, 18.12.2010
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 269/38

Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-16/11) (1)

2011/C 269/81

Language of the case: Estonian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 232/23

Order of the President of the Court of 17 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Minister van Financiën v G. in ‘t Veld

(Case C-110/11) (1)

2011/C 232/40

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.