do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Order of the Court of 31 January 2011 in Case E-13/10 — Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, European standard, Norway, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, national implementing measure








C_2011141EN.01001201.xml










12.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/12





ORDER OF THE COURT
of 31 January 2011
in Case E-13/10
Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Refusal of the EFTA Surveillance Authority to commence proceedings for alleged failure of an EEA State to fulfil its obligations in the field of procurement — Actionable measures — Admissibility)
2011/C 141/12
In Case E-13/10: Aleris Ungplan AS v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION under the second paragraph of Article 36 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice for annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 248/10/COL of 21 June 2010 on procurement for youth care services in Norway, the Court, composed of: Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Per Christiansen, Judges, gave order of 31 January 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The application is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


The applicant bears the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-77/11: Action brought on 31 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2011095EN.01001101.xml










26.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/11





Action brought on 31 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
(Case T-77/11)
2011/C 95/17
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)

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 7 November 2010 in case R 923/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUVO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5560099

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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested services in class 38 and 42, and rejected the Community trade mark application for all the contested services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation or is otherwise impaired to fulfil lawful demands on European Legal proceedings, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.
Case C-43/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Assane Samb
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU migration policy, illegal migration, interpretation of the law, return migration








C_2011113EN.01000701.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Assane Samb
(Case C-43/11)
2011/C 113/12
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano

Defendant in the criminal proceedings

Assane Samb

Question referred

In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.
Case C-44/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, VAT, investment, invoicing, securities








C_2011145EN.01000601.xml










14.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst v Deutsche Bank AG
(Case C-44/11)
2011/C 145/06
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Höchst

Defendant: Deutsche Bank

Questions referred







1.


Is the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management), where a taxable person determines for remuneration the purchase and sale of securities and implements that determination by buying and selling the securities, exempt from tax






—


only in so far as it consists in the management of investment funds for a number of investors collectively within the meaning of Article 135(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) or also










—


in so far as it consists in individual portfolio management for individual investors within the meaning of Article 135(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC (transactions in securities or the negotiation of such transactions)?














2.


For the purposes of defining principal and ancillary services, what significance is to be attached to the criterion that the ancillary service does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied, in the context of separate invoicing for the ancillary service and the fact that the ancillary service can be provided by third parties?










3.


Does Article 56(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112/EC cover only the services referred to in Article 135(1)(a) to (g) of Directive 2006/112/EC or also the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management), even if that transaction is not subject to the latter provision?






(1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.
Case C-42/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour D’Appel D’Amiens (France) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge
Date: 2011-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, France, arrest, interpretation of the law, nationality








C_2011103EN.01001601.xml










2.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/16





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour D’Appel D’Amiens (France) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge
(Case C-42/11)
2011/C 103/28
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour D’Appel D’Amiens

Party/parties to the main proceedings

João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

Questions referred







1.


Does the principle of non discrimination laid down by Article 12 EC preclude national legislation such as Article 695-24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which restricts the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a penalty involving deprivation of liberty to cases where the person whose extradition is sought is of French nationality and the competent French authorities undertake to proceed with such enforcement?










2.


Is the principle of the implementation in domestic law of the grounds for non enforcement provided for in Article 4(6) of the framework decision (1) a matter for the discretion of the Member States or is it compulsory, and in particular may a Member State adopt a measure involving discrimination based on nationality?






(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).