do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-227/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2011 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Netherlands, classification, computer equipment








C_2011226EN.01001201.xml










30.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2011 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
(Case C-227/11)
2011/C 226/23
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Haarlem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

Questions referred







1.


Must the active network analysers [of the type J6801B] be classified under heading 9030 40 or under heading 9031 80?










2.


Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 (1) of 20 January 2005 … invalid because in that regulation the Commission incorrectly classified the network analysers mentioned in points 3 and 4, namely, under CN code 9031 80 39, instead of under code 9030 40?






(1)  Concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37).
Case T-145/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community trade mark ATLAS — Earlier Benelux trade mark atlasair — Formal requirements — Lodging of a statement setting out the grounds for the action — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), air transport, trade-mark law








C_2011186EN.01001802.xml










25.6.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 186/18





Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2011 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Atlas Air (ATLAS)
(Case T-145/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community trade mark ATLAS - Earlier Benelux trade mark atlasair - Formal requirements - Lodging of a statement setting out the grounds for the action - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Rule 20(7) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
2011/C 186/33
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); Atlas Air, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: R. Dissmann, then R. Dissmann and J. Guhn, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2008 (Case R 1023/2007-1) relating to nullity proceedings between Atlas Air, Inc. and Atlas Transport GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Atlas Transport GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Atlas Air, Inc.






(1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.
Case C-230/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Konstantin Toltschin v Kaiser GmbH
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, unemployment, working time








C_2011269EN.01002101.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Konstantin Toltschin v Kaiser GmbH
(Case C-230/11)
2011/C 269/39
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Passau

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konstantin Toltschin

Defendant: Kaiser GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation or practice according to which, if there is a reduction in the days to be worked each week as a result of a lawful order specifying short-time working, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to reflect the ratio between the number of working days each week during the period of short-time working and the number of working days each week for a full-time worker and, as a result, during the period of short-time working, the short-time worker accrues a correspondingly reduced entitlement to annual leave?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation and practice according to which, if the number of days to be worked each week is reduced to zero as a result of a lawful order specifying ‘zero hours short-time working’, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to nothing and, as a result, during the period of ‘zero hours short-time working’, the short-time worker does not accrue any entitlement to annual leave?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case C-5/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (Appeals — Community trade mark — Word mark CANNABIS — Invalidity proceedings — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(c))
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, beer, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law








C_2011252EN.01000703.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/7





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-5/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Word mark CANNABIS - Invalidity proceedings - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(c))
2011/C 252/12
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Giampietro Torresan (represented by: G. Recher and R. Munarini, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto, acting as Agent), Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and R. Cartella, avvocati)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-234/06 Torresan v OHIM, by which the Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2006 (Case R 517/2005-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG and Giampietro Torresan

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Torresan is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Case C-226/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, freedom of association, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition








C_2011211EN.01001701.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Expedia Inc. v Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée
(Case C-226/11)
2011/C 211/32
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Expedia Inc.

Defendants: Autorité de la concurrence, Ministre de l’économie de l’industrie et de l’emploi, Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), Voyages-SNCF.Com, Agence Voyages-SNCF.Com, Société VFE Commerce, Société IDTGV, société par actions simplifiée

Question referred

Should Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) be interpreted as precluding proceedings being brought and penalties being imposed by a national competition authority, on the grounds of both Article 101(1) TFEU and the national law of competition, in respect of a practice under agreements, decisions of associations of undertakings or concerted action that may affect trade between Member States, but which does not reach the thresholds specified by the European Commission in its notice of 22 December 2001 on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis) (OJ 2001 C 368, p. 13)?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 472/2011 of 16 May 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit








L_2011129EN.01001001.xml










17.5.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 129/10








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 472/2011
of 16 May 2011
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 17 May 2011.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 16 May 2011.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


MA 


60,9 




TN 


97,6 




TR 


101,0 




ZZ 


86,5 




0707 00 05 


TR 


108,2 




ZZ 


108,2 




0709 90 70 


MA 


86,8 




TR 


123,2 




ZZ 


105,0 




0709 90 80 


EC 


27,0 




ZZ 


27,0 




0805 10 20 


EG 


59,2 




IL 


55,6 




MA 


46,7 




TN 


54,9 




TR 


71,6 




ZZ 


57,6 




0805 50 10 


TR 


62,0 




ZZ 


62,0 




0808 10 80 


AR 


85,4 




BR 


84,6 




CA 


114,6 




CL 


85,2 




CN 


101,2 




NZ 


124,4 




US 


180,3 




UY 


68,4 




ZA 


83,3 




ZZ 


103,0 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-229/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Alexander Heimann v Kaiser GmbH
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, unemployment, working time








C_2011269EN.01002003.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Passau (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Alexander Heimann v Kaiser GmbH
(Case C-229/11)
2011/C 269/38
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Passau

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alexander Heimann

Defendant: Kaiser GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation or practice according to which, if there is a reduction in the days to be worked each week as a result of a lawful order specifying short-time working, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to reflect the ratio between the number of working days each week during the period of short-time working and the number of working days each week for a full-time worker and, as a result, during the period of short-time working, the short-time worker accrues a correspondingly reduced entitlement to annual leave?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative:
Must Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 12 December 2007 or Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time be interpreted as meaning that they preclude national legislation and practice according to which, if the number of days to be worked each week is reduced to zero as a result of a lawful order specifying ‘zero hours short-time working’, the entitlement to paid annual leave of a worker on short-time working is adjusted pro rata to nothing and, as a result, during the period of ‘zero hours short-time working’, the short-time worker does not accrue any entitlement to annual leave?






(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.
Case C-429/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product — Orange colouring of the toe of a sock — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctive character — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b))
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2011252EN.01001101.xml










27.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/11





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2011 — X Technology Swiss GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-429/10 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product - Orange colouring of the toe of a sock - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctive character - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b))
2011/C 252/20
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: X Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by: A. Herbertz and R. Jung, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2010 in Case T-547/08 X Technology Swiss v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 dismissing the appeal against the examiner’s decision, which refused registration of the sign consisting of the orange colouring of the toe of a sock as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 25 — Distinctive character of a sign consisting of the partial colouring of a product

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


X Technology Swiss GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.
Case C-234/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 May 2011 — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ , gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, VAT, goods and services, interpretation of the law, tax relief








C_2011232EN.01001503.xml










6.8.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/15






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 May 2011 — TETS Haskovo AD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite
(Case C-234/11)
(2011/C 232/26)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen Sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TETS Haskovo AD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, gr. Varna, pri Sentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalna Agentsia po Prihodite

Questions referred







1.


How is the expression ‘destruction of property’ for the purposes of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 (1) to be interpreted, and are the motives for the destruction and/or the conditions under which it takes place relevant for the purposes of the adjustment to the deduction made upon acquisition of the property?










2.


Is the demolition of capital assets, duly proved, with the sole aim of creating new, more modern capital assets with the same purpose to be regarded as a modification of the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted within the meaning of Article 185(1) of Directive 2006/112?










3.


Is Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as permitting the Member States to make adjustments in the case of the destruction of property where its acquisition remained totally or partially unpaid?










4.


Is Article 185(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 79(3) of the Law on VAT and Article 80(2)(1) of the Law on VAT, which provides for an adjustment of the deduction made in cases of destruction of property upon the acquisition of which a total payment of the basic amount and the tax calculated was made, and which makes the non-adjustment of a deduction dependent on a condition other than payment?










5.


Is Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as ruling out the possibility of an adjustment to the deduction in the case of the demolition of existing buildings with the sole aim of creating new, more modern buildings in their place which fulfil the same purpose as the demolished buildings and [are used for transactions] which [give] entitlement to [deduction of input] VAT?






(1)  OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1.
Case C-228/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd
Date: 2011-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU








C_2011211EN.01001702.xml










16.7.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2011 — Melzer v MF Global UK Ltd
(Case C-228/11)
2011/C 211/33
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Melzer

Defendant: MF Global UK Ltd

Question referred

In the context of jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001, (1) where there is cross-border participation of several people in a tort or delict, is reciprocal attribution of the place where the event occurred admissible for determining the place where the harmful event occurred?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).