do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-387/10: Action brought on 2 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2010-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, credit institution, freedom to provide services, tax law








C_2010328EN.01001201.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/12





Action brought on 2 August 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-387/10)
()
2010/C 328/20
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement by adopting and retaining provisions under which only national financial institutions or national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment or real property investment funds;










—


order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that provisions under which only national financial institutions or national business trustees may be appointed as tax representatives of investment or real property investment funds constitute an establishment requirement which restricts the freedom to provide services.
Contrary to the view taken by Austria, the disputed provisions are neither suitable for improving the quality of tax representation nor for protecting the interests of investors and the fiscal administration in proper compliance with tax obligations. It is thus not possible to discern a justification for the restriction on the freedom to provide services.
Case T-320/10: Action brought on 2 August 2010 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt/OHMI — Castel Frères (CASTEL)
Date: 2010-08-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2010260EN.01002401.xml










25.9.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 260/24





Action brought on 2 August 2010 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt/OHMI — Castel Frères (CASTEL)
(Case T-320/10)
()
2010/C 260/33
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt, Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell (Castell, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Castel Frères SA (Blanquefort, France)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2010 in case R 962/2009-2;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘CASTEL’ for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark registration No 2678167

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) on the one hand correctly acknowledged that ‘Castell’ was a recognised indication of origin in relation to wine, yet, on the other erred in considering that the contested trade mark ‘CASTEL’ was conspicuously different from ‘Castell’ and hence concluded that the contested trade mark could be registered, (ii) by saying that ‘CASTEL’ was a word commonly used for ‘castle’ in the wine industry, failed to draw the conclusion that ‘CASTEL’ could not be registered; Infringement of Articles 63, 64, 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not properly take into account the facts and arguments submitted; Infringement of Article 65 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal acted ultra vires in justifying its decision by a ‘peaceful coexistence’, although this doctrine is not apparent for consideration for the registration of a trade mark.
Case C-428/10: Action brought on 27 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2010-08-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, national implementing measure, shareholder, shareholding








C_2010328EN.01001202.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/12





Action brought on 27 August 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-428/10)
()
2010/C 328/21
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schietere de Lophem, acting as Agent)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders in listed companies (1) or, in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










—


order French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for the transposition of Directive 2007/36/EC expired on 3 August 2009. On the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not notified the Commission thereof.


(1)  OJ 2007 L 184, p. 17.