do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-417/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate v 3 M Italia SpA
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, direct tax, interpretation of the law, misuse of a right, tax, tax system








C_2010288EN.01002303.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/23






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate v 3 M Italia SpA
(Case C-417/10)
()
(2010/C 288/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze; Agenzia delle Entrate

Defendant: 3 M Italia SpA

Questions referred







1.


Does the abuse of rights principle in taxation matters, as defined in Cases C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609 and C-425/06 Part Service [2008] ECR I-897, constitute a fundamental principle of Community law only in the field of harmonised taxes and in matters governed by secondary Community law provisions, or does it extend, as a category of abuse of fundamental freedoms, to matters involving non-harmonised taxes, such as direct taxes, where the tax relates to transnational financial matters, such as the acquisition by a company of rights of usufruct over the shares of a second company established in another Member State or in a non-Member State?










2.


Irrespective of the answer to the first question, is there a Community interest in provision being made by the Member States for adequate anti-avoidance measures in the field of non-harmonised taxes, and is such an interest thwarted by the failure to apply — in the context of a tax amnesty measure — the abuse of rights principle which is also recognised as a rule of national law and, if so, are the principles that may be inferred from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union infringed?










3.


Do the principles governing the single market impliedly preclude not only extraordinary measures in the form of a total waiver of a tax claim, but also an extraordinary measure for concluding tax disputes whose application is limited in time and conditional upon payment of only part of the tax due, which is considerably less than the full amount?










4.


Do the principle of non-discrimination and the rules governing State aid preclude the system for concluding tax disputes at issue in the present case?










5.


Does the principle of the effective application of Community law preclude extraordinary procedural rules of limited duration which remove the power to review legality (in particular concerning the correct interpretation and application of Community law) from the court of last instance, which is under an obligation to refer questions of validity and interpretation requiring a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union?
Case C-420/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, environmental protection, health care, interpretation of the law








C_2010288EN.01002501.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/25






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Söll GmbH v Tetra GmbH
(Case C-420/10)
()
(2010/C 288/43)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Söll GmbH

Defendant: Tetra GmbH

Questions referred







1.


For a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC (1), must that product itself destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on the harmful organism directly by chemical or biological means, or is it sufficient that the product have an indirect effect on that harmful organism?










2.


If, for a product to be classified as a ‘biocidal product’ within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, the Court of Justice deems that an indirect chemical or biological effect on the harmful organism is sufficient, what is required of the product’s indirect effect on the harmful organism in order to be able to classify such a product as a ‘biocidal product’, within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 98/8/EC, or is an indirect effect of any nature sufficient to establish a product’s biocidal quality?






(1)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1).
Action brought on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-13/10)
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, European standard, Norway, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure








C_2010320EN.01002101.xml










25.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/21





Action brought on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Case E-13/10)
2010/C 320/10
An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 23 August 2010 by Aleris Ungplan AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, NORWAY.
The applicant requests the EFTA Court:






1.


to annul EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 248/10/COL concerning Cases Nos 66111 and 66744 of 21 June 2010;










2.


to order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The Applicant, Aleris Ungplan AS, is a private provider of youth services in Norway. Aleris Ungplan AS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Aleris Group which has its headquarter in Stockholm, Sweden.










—


The Applicant lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging that the exclusion of all youth care providers except for non-profit organisations from two public procurements relating to youth care services in Norway was contrary to the EEA Agreement.










—


With the contested decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority closed the case, considering that the exclusions were not contrary to the EEA Agreement.










—


The Applicant claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:






—


failed to uphold the principle of non-discrimination of Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC and the rules applicable to public procurement under EEA law, and










—


failed to sufficiently state the reasons for its decision.
Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Sweden, action for annulment, medical device, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01004901.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/49






Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
(Case T-342/10)
()
(2010/C 288/92)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

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 20 May 2010 in case R 1222/2009-2, and;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MESILETTE’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6494025

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1033551 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 486204 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.
Case C-419/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, driving licence, interpretation of the law, residence, traffic regulations








C_2010301EN.01001201.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischen Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 August 2010 — Wolfgang Hofmann v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-419/10)
()
2010/C 301/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Wolfgang Hofmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Question referred

Are Article 2(1) and Article 11(4), second sentence, of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must refuse to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State to a person outside a period during which that person was prohibited from applying for a new licence, in the case where that person’s driving licence had been withdrawn in the national territory of the first Member State and that person’s normal place of residence at the time of the issue of the driving licence was in the national territory of the issuing Member State?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
Case T-356/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Nike International/OHMI — Deichmann (VICTORY RED)
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, leather, sports facilities, trade-mark law








C_2010288EN.01005502.xml










23.10.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/55






Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Nike International/OHMI — Deichmann (VICTORY RED)
(Case T-356/10)
()
(2010/C 288/103)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Oregon, U.S.A.) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

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 18 May 2010 in case R 1309/2009-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, and;










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VICTORY RED’, for goods in classes 18 and 28

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 30318528 of the word mark ‘Victory’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 819143 of the word mark ‘Victory’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.
Recommendation of the European Central Bank of 23 August 2010 to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia (ECB/2010/11)
Date: 2010-08-23
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: European Central Bank, Italy, accountant, appointment of staff, auditing, central bank








C_2010233EN.01000101.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 233/1





RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
of 23 August 2010
to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia
(ECB/2010/11)
2010/C 233/01
THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,
Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.










(2)


The mandate of the Banca d’Italia’s current external auditors ended after the audit for the financial year 2009. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2010.










(3)


The Banca d’Italia has selected PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA as its external auditors for the financial years 2010 to 2015,




HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that PricewaterhouseCoopers SpA should be appointed as the external auditors of the Banca d’Italia for the financial years 2010 to 2015.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 23 August 2010.


The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET