do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-101/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2011 by Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel
Date: 2011-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment, trade-mark law








C_2011130EN.01001302.xml










30.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 130/13





Appeal brought on 28 February 2011 by Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09 José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel
(Case C-101/11 P)
2011/C 130/24
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellants: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (represented by: S. Míguez Pereira, abogada)

Other parties to the proceedings: José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Form of order sought







—


declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;










—


set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Case T-513/09;










—


declare Community design No 000 426 895-0002 invalid;










—


in the alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh ruling on the merits;










—


order José Manuel Baena Grupo, S.A. to pay the costs incurred at first instance and, should it be granted leave to intervene in the appeal in its capacity as proprietor of the industrial design in respect of which invalidity proceedings have been brought, the costs of the present appeal proceedings as well.





Pleas in law and main arguments







(a)


Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 (1) and related provisions.
Error by the General Court in declaring that the overall impression made by the disputed design on informed users is different from that made by the earlier design relied on in support of the application for invalidity.










(b)


Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 and related provisions.
Omission and error on the part of the General Court in the assessment and application of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002.










(c)


Error on the part of the General Court in failing to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal.
Failure by the General Court, in delivering the judgment under appeal, to state reasons and to provide justification; and exceeding of its jurisdiction.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
Case C-95/11: Action brought on 28 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
Date: 2011-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Denmark, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, tax on consumption








C_2011186EN.01001101.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/11





Action brought on 28 February 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-95/11)
2011/C 186/18
Language of the case: Danish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent, and H. Peytz, lawyer)

Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

Form of order sought







—


Declare that, by allowing for non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)











—


order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In order to simplify administration and prevent certain forms of abuse, the VAT Directive allows the Member States to regard two or more taxable persons as a single taxable person. The Commission takes the view that the Directive does not allow non-taxable persons to be part of such a VAT group and thereby be covered by the rights and obligations which apply to taxable persons. Therefore, the Danish legislation, which allows non-taxable persons to be part of a VAT group, is not compatible with the Directive.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-92/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 28 February 2011 — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.
Date: 2011-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer price, gas supply, unfair terms of contract








C_2011211EN.01001001.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 28 February 2011 — RWE Vertrieb AG v Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.
(Case C-92/11)
2011/C 211/17
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: RWE Vertrieb AG

Respondent on a point of law: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen e.V.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms concerning price variations in gas supply contracts with consumers who are to be supplied outside the general obligation to supply gas and on the basis of the general freedom of contract (special customers) are not subject to the provisions of the directive if, in those contractual terms, the statutory provisions which apply to standard-rate customers within the framework of the general obligation to provide a connection and supply gas are incorporated unchanged in the contractual relationships with special customers?










2.


Are Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts — in so far as they are applicable — in conjunction with point 1(j) and the second sentence of point 2(b) of the annex referred to in Article 3(3) of that directive, and Article 3(3) of, in conjunction with points (b) and/or (c) of Annex A to, Directive 2003/55/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC to be interpreted as meaning that contractual terms concerning price variations in natural-gas supply contracts with special customers meet the requirements for plain and intelligible wording and/or possess the requisite degree of transparency if, although the grounds, preconditions and scope of a change in price are not set out, it is nevertheless ensured that the gas supply company informs its customers of every price increase in good time in advance and those customers have the right to terminate the contract by way of notice if they do not wish to accept the amended conditions of which they have been informed?






(1)  OJ L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ L 176, p. 57.
Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission
Date: 2011-02-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU control, European Commission, legal basis, power of implementation, powers of the institutions (EU)













EUR-Lex - 52011XX0228(01) - EN











|



52011XX0228(01)

Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission  


Official Journal L 055 , 28/02/2011 P. 019 - 019 




Statement by the European Parliament, the Council and the CommissionArticle 5(2) of this Regulation requires the Commission to adopt a draft implementing act where the committee delivers a positive opinion. This provision does not preclude that Commission may, as is the current practice, in very exceptional cases, take into consideration new circumstances that have arisen after the vote and decide not to adopt a draft implementing act, after having duly informed the committee and the legislator.--------------------------------------------------