do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-438/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Lilia Druțu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, domestic market, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle industry, tax, tax exemption, vehicle registration








C_2010328EN.01001301.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Lilia Druțu v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
(Case C-438/10)
()
2010/C 328/23
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lilia Druțu

Defendants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

Questions referred







1.


Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFUE (formerly Article 90 EC) preclude the levying of a domestic tax on the registration for the first time in Romania of motor vehicles already registered in another Member State of the European Union, while motor vehicles already registered in Romania may be the subject of transactions without the imposition of such a tax?










2.


Since the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU is intended to eliminate factors liable to protect the national market and infringe the principles of competition which govern the Community market, does the introduction of exemptions from the obligation to pay the pollution tax, whose scope also covers motor vehicles produced in Romania, constitute a measure to protect the national motor vehicle manufacturing sector?
Case T-72/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Travel Service v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark smartWings — Earlier national and international word and figurative marks EUROWINGS and EuroWings — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, air transport, service








C_2010301EN.01002502.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/25





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Travel Service v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)
(Case T-72/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark smartWings - Earlier national and international word and figurative marks EUROWINGS and EuroWings - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009))
2010/C 301/40
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Travel Service a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová and R. Charvát, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2007 (Case R 1515/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG and Travel Service a.s.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Travel Service a.s. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG.






(1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.
Case T-26/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for industrial plastic sacks — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Seriousness of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: fine, industrial product, packaging product, restriction on competition, restrictive trade practice








C_2010301EN.01002102.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/21





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Trioplast Wittenheim v Commission
(Case T-26/06) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for industrial plastic sacks - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Seriousness of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality)
2010/C 301/32
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Trioplast Wittenheim SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: T. Petersson and O. Larsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and V. Bottka, subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 relating to a procedure under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial sacks) concerning an agreement in the market for plastic industrial sacks and, in the alternative, an application for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the action;










2.


orders Trioplast Witteheim SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.
Case T-452/04: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — French-language publishing — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets — Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold — Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser — Trustee’s independence — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: communications industry, competition law, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, publishing








C_2010301EN.01002002.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/20





Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2010 — Éditions Jacob v Commission
(Case T-452/04) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - French-language publishing - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market subject to sale of assets - Decision to approve the purchaser of the assets sold - Action for annulment brought by an unsuccessful prospective purchaser - Trustee’s independence - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89)
2010/C 301/30
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Éditions Odile Jacob SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: W. van Weert, O. Fréget, M. Struys, M. Potel and L. Eskenazi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially A. Whelan, O. Beynet, A. Bouquet and F. Arbault, then A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, acting as Agents)
Interveners in support of the defendant: Wendel Investissement SA (Paris) (represented by: initially C. Couadou and M. Trabucchi, then M. Trabucchi and F. Gordon, lawyers); and Lagardère SCA (Paris) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and S. Sorinas Jimeno, then A. Winckler, F. de Bure and J.-B. Pinçon, lawyers

Re:

Application for the annulment of Commission Decision (2004) D/203365 of 30 July 2004 relating to the approval of Wendel Investissement as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP) (OJ 2004 L 125, p. 54).

Operative part of the judgment

The General Court:






1.


annuls Commission Decision (2004)D/203365 of 30 July 2004 on the approval of Wendel Investissement SA as purchaser of the assets sold in accordance with Commission Decision 2004/422/EEC of 7 January 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2978 — Lagardère/Natexis/VUP);










2.


orders the European Commission and Lagardère SCA to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Éditions Odile Jacob SAS;










3.


orders Wendel Investissement to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, of 19.2.2005.
Case T-409/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Luxembourg, action for annulment, clothing industry, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01005601.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/56





Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Bottega Veneta International v OHIM (Shape of a handbag)
(Case T-409/10)
()
2010/C 301/89
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Bottega Veneta International Sarl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2010 in Case R 1247/2009-1;










—


Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Trade mark consisting of a distinctive three-dimensional sign known as the ‘veneta’ bag (application for registration No 6632608) for goods in Class 18 (‘bags and handbags’).

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 9(3)(a) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.
Joined Cases T-156/07 and 232/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Spain v Commission (Rules on the use of languages — Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators — Publication in all the official languages — Amendments — Regulation No 1 — Articles 27, 28 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of non-discrimination)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, Spain, competition (EU), official language








C_2010301EN.01002401.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/24





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Spain v Commission
(Joined Cases T-156/07 and 232/07) (1)

(Rules on the use of languages - Notice of open competitions for the recruitment of administrators - Publication in all the official languages - Amendments - Regulation No 1 - Articles 27, 28 and Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Article 1(1) and (2) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of non-discrimination)
2010/C 301/37
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: Case T-156/07, F. Díez Moreno and, Case T 232/07, F. Díez Moreno and N. Díaz Abad, abogados del Estado)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall, L. Escobar Guerrero and H. Krämer, and subsequently by J. Currall, H. Krämer and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent) (Cases T-156/07 and T-232/07); and Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Vodina and M. Michelogiannaki, Agents) (Case T-156/07)

Re:

Application for annulment, first, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/94/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information, communication and media (OJ 2007 C 45 A, p. 3) and, second, of the Notice of Open Competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool of Administrators (AD 5) in the field of information science (library/documentation) (OJ 2007 C 103 A, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania and the Hellenic Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.
Case C-436/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Belgian State — SPF Finances v BLM SA
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, property leasing, provision of services, tax exemption, tax relief








C_2010328EN.01001203.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 13 September 2010 — Belgian State — SPF Finances v BLM SA
(Case C-436/10)
()
2010/C 328/22
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Mons

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

Defendant: BLM SA

Question referred

Must Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which treats as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), the private use by a director and his family of part of a building constructed or owned under a right in rem in that property by a taxable legal person, where the input tax on that asset is deductible?


(1)  OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1
Case T-314/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea — Definition of the product concerned — Rights of the defence — Advisory Committee — Duty to state reasons — Choice of the method used to define the product concerned — Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical engineering, household electrical appliance, originating product








C_2010301EN.01002301.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/23





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Whirlpool Europe v Council
(Case T-314/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain combined refrigerator-freezers originating in South Korea - Definition of the product concerned - Rights of the defence - Advisory Committee - Duty to state reasons - Choice of the method used to define the product concerned - Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 15(2) and Article 20(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
2010/C 301/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by: M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Albenzio, lawyer), and European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Desmedt and A. Verheyden, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents) and LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented initially by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker, and subsequently by L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

Re:

Application for the annulment in part of Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Whirlpool Europe Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and LG Electronics, Inc.;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic, the European Commission and the European Committee of Domestic Equipment Manufacturers (CECED) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.
Case T-193/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — TF1 v European Commission (State aid — Aid schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production — Decision not to raise objections — Actions for annulment — Absence of any significant effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, audiovisual production, control of State aid, film production








C_2010301EN.01002202.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/22





Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — TF1 v European Commission
(Case T-193/06) (1)

(State aid - Aid schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production - Decision not to raise objections - Actions for annulment - Absence of any significant effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility)
2010/C 301/34
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, T. Scharf and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and L. Butel, acting as Agents)

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 832 Final of 22 March 2006 relating to support measures for the cinema and audiovisual industry in France (State aid NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 — France, Aid schemes for the film and audiovisual industry)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.
Case T-149/08: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM — aRigen (Sorvir) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Sorvir — Earlier Community word mark NORVIR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, pharmaceutical product, research body, trade-mark law








C_2010301EN.01002603.xml










6.11.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 301/26





Order of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM — aRigen (Sorvir)
(Case T-149/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Sorvir - Earlier Community word mark NORVIR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 301/43
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: aRigen, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and aRigen, Inc.

Operative part of the order

The General Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2);










2.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Abbott Laboratories.






(1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.
Case C-440/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC SEMTEX Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
Date: 2010-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, interpretation of the law, motor vehicle, pollution, tax system








C_2010328EN.01001401.xml










4.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/14





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 13 September 2010 — SC SEMTEX Srl v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău
(Case C-440/10)
()
2010/C 328/25
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bacău

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC SEMTEX Srl

Respondents: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

Questions referred







1.


Does the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State, which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 and which may constitute an internal tax on goods coming from other Member States, account being taken of the fact that the tax is not levied upon the re-registering in Romania of a motor vehicle which has the same characteristics as an imported second-hand motor vehicle?










2.


Does the second paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC), under which no Member State may impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, preclude the establishment of a pollution tax for motor vehicles which is levied upon the first registration in the territory of a Member State and which has the characteristics specified by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, account being taken of the fact that exemption from payment of the pollution tax was granted under Government Emergency Order No 218/2008 for the category of motor vehicle which possesses the technical characteristics of the motor vehicles manufactured in Romania?