do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-427/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 28 October 2009 — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, interpretation of the law, market approval, marketing, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation








C_2010011EN.01001801.xml










16.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 11/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales) made on 28 October 2009 — Generics (UK) Ltd v Synaptech Inc
(Case C-427/09)
2010/C 11/29
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd

Defendant: Synaptech Inc

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 (1), is the ‘first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community’ the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community which was issued in accordance with Council Directive 65/65/EEC (2) (now replaced with Directive 2001/83/EC (3)) or will any authorisation that enables the product to be placed on the market in the Community or EEA suffice?










2.


If, for the purposes of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, an ‘authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community’ must have been issued in accordance with Directive 65/65/EEC (now replaced with Directive 2001/83/EC), is an authorisation that was granted in 1963 in Austria in accordance with the national legislation in force at that time (which did not comply with the requirements of Directive 65/65/EEC) and that was never amended to comply with Directive 65/65/EEC and was ultimately withdrawn in 2001 to be treated as an authorisation granted in accordance with Directive 65/65/EEC for that purpose?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
OJ L 182, p. 1

(2)  Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products
OJ 22, p. 369

(3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use
OJ L 311, p. 67
Case C-426/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, higher education, interpretation of the law, professional experience, recognition of diplomas, vocational training








C_2010024EN.01002201.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/22





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
(Case C-426/09)
2010/C 24/39
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Question referred

Does the term ‘professional experience’ in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), correspond to the term ‘professional experience’ defined in Article 1(e) of that Directive and can it be understood to include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:






(a)


it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin;










(b)


it was acquired in the context of the exercise of the profession which is the subject of an application filed in reliance in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (see the terms ‘the profession concerned’, ‘la profession concernée’, ‘der betreffende Beruf’ used in the English, French and German versions of the Directive respectively) and










(c)


it was acquired during the lawful pursuit of the professional activity, that is to say, under the terms and conditions of the relevant legislation of the Member State in which it was acquired, thereby excluding experience acquired in the profession concerned in the host Member State before the application was accepted, because the profession concerned cannot be lawfully pursued in the host Member State before the application is accepted (subject of course to Article 5 of the Directive, which allows the applicant, subject to conditions, in order to undergo professional education and training not undergone in the Member State of origin, to pursue the profession in the host Member State with the assistance of a qualified member of the profession)?
Case T-339/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak (Panorama) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Panorama — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), electrical equipment, fish, trade-mark law








C_2009297EN.01002001.xml










5.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/20





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — Juwel Aquarium v OHIM — Potschak (Panorama)
(Case T-339/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Panorama - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 297/27
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG (Rotenburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Christian Potschak (Bobingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Donath, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2007 (Case R 214/2006-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Christian Potschak and Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Juwel Aquarium GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
Case C-424/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: full-time employment, higher education, interpretation of the law, professional association, recognition of diplomas, scientific research, unpaid work, vocational training








C_2010024EN.01002102.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Christina Ioanni Toki v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
(Case C-424/09)
2010/C 24/37
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Christina Toki

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), prior its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the recognition mechanism provided for therein apply to cases in which, in the Member State of origin, the profession in question is regulated within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(d) of the directive, but the person concerned is not a full member of an association or organisation which fulfils the conditions of that paragraph?










2.


For the purposes of Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC does pursuit of a profession full-time in the Member State of origin mean pursuit in a self-employed or employed capacity of the actual profession authorisation to pursue which is being sought in the host Member State in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC, or may it also cover employment on research work in an academic field related to the profession in an establishment that is in principle not for profit?
Case C-421/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Humanplasma GmbH v Republic of Austria
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Germany, blood transfusion, import, interpretation of the law, national law, originating product








C_2010024EN.01002001.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Humanplasma GmbH v Republic of Austria
(Case C-421/09)
2010/C 24/34
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Humanplasma GmbH

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Question referred

Does Article 28 (in conjunction with Article 30) EC preclude the application of a national provision under which the importation of erythrocyte concentrates from Germany is permitted only where the blood was donated without any payment having been made (not even coverage of expenses), that being a condition which is also applicable to the obtaining of erythrocyte concentrates within Austria?
Case C-425/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to a profession, higher education, interpretation of the law, professional experience, recognition of diplomas, vocational training








C_2010024EN.01002103.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
(Case C-425/09)
2010/C 24/38
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vasilios Alexandrou Giankoulis

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Question referred

Does the term ‘professional experience’ in Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), correspond to the term ‘professional experience’ defined in Article 1(e) of that Directive and can it be understood to include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:






(a)


it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin;










(b)


it was acquired in the context of the exercise of the profession which is the subject of an application filed in reliance in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (see the terms ‘the profession concerned’, ‘la profession concernée’, ‘der betreffende Beruf’ used in the English, French and German versions of the Directive respectively) and










(c)


it was acquired during the lawful pursuit of the professional activity, that is to say, under the terms and conditions of the relevant legislation of the Member State in which it was acquired, thereby excluding experience acquired in the profession concerned in the host Member State before the application was accepted, because the profession concerned cannot be lawfully pursued in the host Member State before the application is accepted (subject of course to Article 5 of the Directive, which allows the applicant, subject to conditions, in order to undergo professional education and training not undergone in the Member State of origin, to pursue the profession in the host Member State with the assistance of a qualified member of the profession)?
Case C-410/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Official Journal, competition law, disclosure of information, electronic mail, interpretation of the law, official language, regulation of telecommunications, single market, telecommunications, transmission network








C_2010024EN.01001903.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
(Case C-410/09)
2010/C 24/33
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Question referred

Does Article 58 of the Act of Accession (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33) allow reliance to be placed against individuals in a Member State upon European Commission guidelines (OJ 2002 C 165, p. 6) of which, under Article 16(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), the national regulatory authority should take the utmost account when carrying out an analysis of the relevant markets, where those guidelines have not been published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the language of that State and that language is an official language of the European Union?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1018/2009 of 28 October 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit








L_2009282EN.01000101.xml










29.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 282/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1018/2009
of 28 October 2009
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 October 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 28 October 2009.


For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MA 


35,7 




MK 


23,3 




TR 


57,4 




ZZ 


38,8 




0707 00 05 


TR 


128,1 




ZZ 


128,1 




0709 90 70 


MA 


78,2 




TR 


113,5 




ZZ 


95,9 




0805 50 10 


AR 


77,6 




TR 


72,8 




ZA 


82,2 




ZZ 


77,5 




0806 10 10 


BR 


198,8 




EG 


89,1 




TR 


117,8 




US 


238,2 




ZZ 


161,0 




0808 10 80 


AU 


182,8 




CA 


74,5 




CL 


114,8 




NZ 


90,0 




TR 


91,6 




US 


116,2 




ZA 


70,9 




ZZ 


105,8 




0808 20 50 


CN 


64,7 




ZZ 


64,7 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case T-80/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark RNAiFect — Earlier Community word mark RNActive — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), biology, therapeutics, trade-mark law








C_2009297EN.01002002.xml










5.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/20





Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 2009 — CureVac v OHIM — Qiagen (RNAiFect)
(Case T-80/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark RNAiFect - Earlier Community word mark RNActive - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2009/C 297/28
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: CureVac GmbH (Tübingen, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Kicia and S. Schäffner, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Qiagen GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: initially E. Krings, and subsequently V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2007 (Case R 1219/2006-1) relating to opposition proceedings between CureVac GmbH and Qiagen GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CureVac GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
Case C-422/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
Date: 2009-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: higher education, interpretation of the law, professional experience, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, vocational training








C_2010024EN.01002002.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 28 October 2009 — Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
(Case C-422/09)
2010/C 24/35
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vasiliki Stylianou Vandorou

Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

Question referred

For the purposes of Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), as amended by Article 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1), and prior to its repeal pursuant to Article 62 of Directive 2005/36/EC (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22), does the ‘professional experience’ to be taken into account by the competent national authority, in order to determine whether the knowledge acquired by the person concerned by reason of such experience is such that it fully or partly covers the substantial differences between the matters covered by the education and training received by the person concerned in the Member State of origin and those covered by the diploma required in the host Member State, include experience which exhibits the following cumulative characteristics:






(a)


it was acquired by the person concerned after obtaining a diploma granting access to a specific regulated profession in the Member State of origin,










(b)


it was acquired in the context of professional activities in the host Member State which, although not identical to the regulated profession the right to pursue which in the host Member State is the subject of the application filed by the person concerned in reliance on Directive 89/48/EEC (and which cannot, moreover, be lawfully pursued in the host Member State until such time as the said application has been accepted) are, in the essential view of the national authority responsible for ruling on the application, professional activities which appear to correlate with the above regulated profession, and










(c)


it is found, during the material appraisal by the aforementioned national authority, owing to the above correlation, to be such that it covers at least some of the substantial differences between the matters covered by the education and training received by the person concerned in the Member State of origin and the matters covered by the corresponding diploma in the host Member State?