do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-212/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Limited v Administración del Estado
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, credit institution, money laundering, terrorism








C_2011226EN.01001102.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Jyske Bank Gibraltar Limited v Administración del Estado
(Case C-212/11)
2011/C 226/21
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jyske Bank Gibraltar Limited

Defendant: Administración del Estado

Question referred

Does Article 22(2) of Directive 2005/60/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering and terrorist financing permit a Member State to make it a mandatory requirement that the information which must be provided by credit institutions operating in its territory without a permanent establishment be forwarded directly to its own authorities responsible for the prevention of money laundering, or, on the other hand, must the request for information be directed to the Financial Intelligence Unit of the Member State in whose territory the addressee institution is situated?


(1)  OJ 2005 L 309, p. 15.
Case C-214/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Grand Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, game of chance, interpretation of the law








C_2011219EN.01000602.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Grand Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
(Case C-214/11)
2011/C 219/07
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grand Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

Question referred

Must Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1) and of rules on Information Society services be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘technical regulation’, the draft of which must be communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, includes a legislative measure which prohibits the extension of authorisations to carry on an activity involving gaming on low-value-prize machines?


(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).
Case C-213/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Fortuna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Poland, game of chance, interpretation of the law








C_2011219EN.01000601.xml










23.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Fortuna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
(Case C-213/11)
2011/C 219/06
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fortuna Sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

Question referred

Must Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1) and of rules on Information Society services be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘technical regulation’, the draft of which must be communicated to the European Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, includes a legislative measure which prohibits the alteration of authorisations for activity involving gaming on low-value-prize machines in respect of a change in the place at which that gaming is organised?


(1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).
Case F-55/11: Action brought on 9 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EU Member State, deduction at source, education grant, loan








C_2011252EN.01005603.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/56





Action brought on 9 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-55/11)
2011/C 252/125
Language of the cse: Greek

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the dispute

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reduce the education allowance paid to the applicant by reason of the fact that his son receives financial aid from a Member State in the form of a bursary and a loan.

Forms of order sought







—


Annul the decision to reduce the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant;










—


annul the decision concerning the retrospective retention of EUR 939,96, as shown by the applicant’s pay slip for October 2010;










—


annul the decision concerning the retrospective retention of EUR 936,96, as shown by the applicant’s pay slip for November 2010;










—


annul the Commission’s decision of 17 February 2011 expressly dismissing the complaint;










—


repay to the applicant, with interest, the sums withheld from him;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Case T-242/11: Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2011211EN.01002702.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/27





Action brought on 9 May 2011 — Kaltenbach & Voigt v OHIM (3D eXam)
(Case T-242/11)
2011/C 211/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kaltenbach & Voigt GmbH (Biberach an der Riß, Germany) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

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 1 March 2011 in case R 2361/2010-2;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in words ‘3D eXam’ for goods in class 10

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the protection of the international registration to the European Union pursuant to Article 7(1)(b), (c) and Article 2 CTMR

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and the failure to take into account prior national registrations/grants of protection, as the International registration at issue: (i) is not purely descriptive, and; (ii) exhibits distinctiveness as the relevant public will consider the sign ‘3D eXam’ as an indication of trade origin.
Case C-211/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Maison Patrice Alard sprl
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, VAT, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation








C_2011211EN.01001502.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Maison Patrice Alard sprl
(Case C-211/11)
2011/C 211/29
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Maison Patrice Alard sprl

Questions referred







1.


Are 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) to be interpreted as precluding the private use by the mangers, administrators or members and their families of a company with legal personality that is liable to tax of all or part of a property forming part of the assets of the company and thus treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of the business, from being treated 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), where there is no provision for payment of rent in money as consideration for that use, which amounts to a benefit in kind that is taxed as such for the purpose of the managers’ income tax and such use is therefore regarded for tax purposes as the consideration for a proportion of the work performed by the managers, administrators or members?










2.


Are those provisions to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies in such circumstances where the company fails to prove that there is an essential link between the operation of the business and the making available of all or part of the property to the managers, administrators or members and, if so, is an indirect link sufficient?






(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
Case C-210/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Medicom sprl
Date: 2011-05-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation








C_2011211EN.01001501.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Medicom sprl
(Case C-210/11)
2011/C 211/28
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: État belge

Defendant: Medicom sprl

Questions referred







1.


Are 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) to be interpreted as precluding the private use by the mangers, administrators or members and their families of a company with legal personality that is liable to tax of all or part of a property forming part of the assets of the company and thus treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of the business, from being treated 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), where there is no provision for payment of rent in money as consideration for that use, which amounts to a benefit in kind that is taxed as such for the purpose of the managers’ income tax and such use is therefore regarded for tax purposes as the consideration for a proportion of the work performed by the managers, administrators or members?










2.


Are those provisions to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies in such circumstances where the company fails to prove that there is an essential link between the operation of the business and the making available of all or part of the property to the managers, administrators or members and, if so, is an indirect link sufficient?






(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, P. 1.