ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 344/24

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 — Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bariatrix Europe Inc. SAS

(Case C-120/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 74(2) - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - First and third subparagraphs of Rule 50(1) - Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark - Existence of the mark - Evidence submitted in support of the opposition after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account)

2013/C 344/40

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Bernhard Rintisch (represented by: A. Dreyer, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-62/09 Rintisch v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of national word and figurative marks ‘PROTI’, ‘PROTIPOWER’ and ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in Classes 29 and 32, and the national trade name ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32, against decision R 740/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 15 December 2008, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition filed by the applicant in respect of registration of the word mark ‘PROTI SNACK’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/6

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf v Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

(Case C-85/12) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Reorganisation and winding-up of credit institutions - Directive 2001/24/EC - Articles 3, 9 and 32 - National legislative act conferring on reorganisation measures the effects of winding-up proceedings - Legislative measure prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium)

2013/C 367/09

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: LBI hf, formerly Landsbanki Islands hf

Defendants: Kepler Capital Markets SA, Frédéric Giraux

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of Articles 3, 9 and 32 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15) — Authorities authorised to adopt reorganisation and winding up measures for credit institutions — Administrative or judicial authorities — Permissibility of measures stemming directly from a law of a Member State of the EEA — Law applicable to proceedings concerning assets of a credit institution situated in a Member State — Effects on the application, in a Member State, of a legislative measure of another Member State, prohibiting or suspending any legal proceedings against a credit institution after the entry into force of a moratorium, in the case of interim protective measures adopted prior to the declaration of the moratorium

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 3 and 9 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions must be interpreted as meaning that reorganisation or winding-up measures in regard to a financial institution, such as those based on the transitional provisions in point II of Law No 44/2009, are to be regarded as measures adopted by an administrative or judicial authority for the purposes of those articles of Directive 2001/24, where those transitional provisions take effect only by means of judicial decisions granting a moratorium to a credit institution.

2. Article 32 of Directive 2001/24 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, as Article 98 of Law No 161/2002 on financial institutions, as amended by Law No 129/2008 of 13 November 2008, which prohibited or suspended any legal action against a financial institution once it benefitted from a moratorium, from being effective in regard to interim protective measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, adopted in another Member State before the declaration of the moratorium.

(1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 367/19

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Romania) — Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală v SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA

(Case C-431/12) (1)

(Taxation - Value added tax - Refund of excess VAT by set-off - Annulment of set-off decision - Obligation to pay default interest to the taxable person)

2013/C 367/32

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală

Defendant: SC Rafinăria Steaua Română SA

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Interpretation of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Refund of excess VAT by set-off — Obligation on the tax authorities to pay default interest where the set-off decisions are annulled by a court

Operative part of the judgment

Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a taxable person, having made a claim for refund of excess input value added tax over the value added tax which it is liable to pay, cannot obtain from the tax authorities of a Member State default interest on a refund made late by those authorities in respect of a period during which administrative measures precluding the refund, which were subsequently annulled by a court ruling, were in force.

(1) OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/16

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Italian Republic v European Commission

(Case C-587/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Establishing a company in certain third countries - Soft loans - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of the original decision concerning the same proceedings - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court)

2014/C 9/24

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-257/10 Italy v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/134/EU of 24 March 2010 on the State aid implemented by Italy for Wam SpA (OJ 2011 L 57, p. 29) — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of audi alteram partem — Res judicata — Principle of proportionality — De minimis Regulation

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 9/11

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Italy) — Giuseppa Romeo v Regione Siciliana

(Case C-313/12) (1)

(National administrative procedure - Purely internal situation - Administrative acts - Obligation to state reasons - Whether it is possible for failure to state reasons to be remedied during legal proceedings against an administrative act - Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

2014/C 9/15

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Giuseppa Romeo

Defendant: Regione Siciliana

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana — Interpretation of Article 296 TFEU and Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation allowing public authorities not to state the reasons for their acts in certain circumstances or to remedy the failure to state reasons for an administrative act during judicial proceedings brought against that act — National law which makes a renvoi to European Union law in order to regulate purely internal situations — Whether it is possible for the national courts to interpret and apply the provisions and principles of national law in a manner which is at variance with the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice

Operative part of the judgment

1. The first question referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana (Italy), by decision of 19 June 2012 is inadmissible.

2. The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions referred by the Corte dei conti, sezione giurisdizionale per la Regione Siciliana by decision of 19 June 2012.

(1) OJ C 295, 29.9.2012
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/13

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — in the proceedings brought by X

(Case C-486/12) (1)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Conditions governing the exercise of a right of access - Levying of excessive fees)

2014/C 45/23

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch

Party to the main proceedings

X

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) — Right of access to data — Communication of data undergoing processing — Meaning — Grant of access to data — Levying a fee.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as not precluding the levying of fees in respect of the communication of personal data by a public authority.

2. Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to ensure that fees levied when the right to access personal data is exercised are not excessive for the purposes of that provision, the level of those fees must not exceed the cost of communicating such data. It is for the national court to carry out any verifications necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case.

(1) OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 39/3

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 November 2013 — Groupe Gascogne SA v European Commission

(Case C-58/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Cartels - Industrial plastic bags sector - Whether the infringement by a subsidiary may be attributed to the parent company - Taking into account the total turnover of the group in order to calculate the upper limit of the fine - Excessive length of the proceedings before the General Court - Principle of effective legal protection)

2014/C 39/04

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Groupe Gascogne SA (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. von Lingen, Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 November 2011 in Case T-72/06 Groupe Gascogne v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment in part and variation of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 (EC) (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags) concerning a cartel in the industrial plastic bags sector, and an application to vary that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Groupe Gascogne SA to pay the costs of this appeal.

(1) OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/20

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited

(Case C-495/12) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Article 132(1)(m) - Supply of services closely linked to sport - Access to a golf course - Payment of golf club access charge (‘green fee’) by visiting non-members - Exclusion from the exemption - Article 133(d) - Article 134(b) - Additional income)

2014/C 52/34

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondent: Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 132(1)(m), 133(d) and 134(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions — Supply of services closely linked with sport or physical education — Sale by a non-profit-making body of rights to use a golf course for a certain period of time for the purpose of playing golf.

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 134(b) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as not excluding from the exemption in Article 132(1)(m) of that directive a supply of services consisting in the grant, by a non-profit-making body managing a golf course and offering a membership scheme, of the right to use that golf course to visiting non-members of that body.

2. Article 133(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as not allowing the Member States, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to exclude from the exemption in Article 132(1)(m) of that directive a supply of services consisting in the grant of the right to use the golf course managed by a non-profit-making body offering a membership scheme when that supply is provided to visiting non-members of that body.

(1) OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/16

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

(Case C-561/12) (1)

(Public procurement - Negotiated procedure with prior publication of a contract notice - Whether possible for the contracting authority to negotiate on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications relating to the contract)

2014/C 45/28

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Riigikohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

Respondents: Rahandusministeerium

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Riigikohus — Interpretation of Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Negotiated procedure with publication of a contract notice — Whether or not possible for the contracting authority to enter into negotiations on tenders that do not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications set out in the contract documents — Technical specifications amended during the negotiations — Whether the public contract may be awarded to a tenderer submitting a tender that does not meet those technical specifications.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not allow the contracting authority to negotiate with tenderers tenders that do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract.

(1) OJ C 38, 9.2.2013.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/18

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd v Sanofi

(Case C-443/12) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Successive marketing of two medicinal products containing, wholly or partially, the same active ingredient - Combination of active ingredients, one of which has already been marketed in the form of a medicinal product with a single active ingredient - Whether it is possible to obtain a number of certificates on the basis of the same patent and two marketing authorisations)

2014/C 52/30

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Actavis Group PTC EHF, Actavis UK Ltd

Defendant: Sanofi

Intervening party: Sanofi Pharma Bristol-Myers Squibb SNC

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a supplementary protection certificate — Concept of ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Possibility of granting the certificate for each medicinal product where there is a patent covering a number of medicinal products.

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, where, on the basis of a patent protecting an innovative active ingredient and a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product containing that ingredient as the single active ingredient, the holder of that patent has already obtained a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient entitling him to oppose the use of that active ingredient, either alone or in combination with other active ingredients, Article 3(c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding that patent holder from obtaining — on the basis of that same patent but a subsequent marketing authorisation for a different medicinal product containing that active ingredient in conjunction with another active ingredient which is not protected as such by the patent — a second supplementary protection certificate relating to that combination of active ingredients.

(1) OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 52/21

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV v European Commission

(Case C-586/12 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Fixing of the gross price of road pavement bitumen - Fixing of a rebate for road builders - Evidence - Principle of equal treatment - Unlimited jurisdiction - Proportionality of the fine - Review by the Court)

2014/C 52/36

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 in Case T-357/06 Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Koninklijke Wegenbouw Stevin BV to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.