do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case F-116/11: Action brought on 7 November 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, European civil service, competition (EU), indemnification








C_2012025EN.01006904.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/69






Action brought on 7 November 2011 — ZZ v European Commission
(Case F-116/11)
(2012/C 25/135)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests under EPSO competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

Forms of order sought







—


annul the contested decision,










—


order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage as a result of the contested decision.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-559/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, advertising malpractice, trading hours, weekly rest period








C_2012032EN.01001302.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/13





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
(Case C-559/11)
2012/C 32/23
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV

Questions referred







1.


Is it to be regarded as an act, omission, course of conduct or representation, commercial communication including advertising and marketing, by a trader, directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers, and thus as a commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market [and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’)], for a shop to be kept open by a trader seven days a week and for that fact to be advertised?










2.


Does Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, or another provision of European Union law, such as, inter alia, Articles 34 TFEU or 35 TFEU or Articles 49 TFEU or 56 TFEU, preclude a provision of national law, such as Articles 8 to 14 of the [Belgian] Law of 10 November 2006 [on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services (‘the Law of 10 November 2006’)] which (save for certain exceptions set out in that law) require a trader to choose a weekly closing day for the shop, given that the trader is thereby prohibited from opening his shop seven days a week, irrespective of the impact that this has or may have on the average consumer and irrespective of whether that act may, in the particular circumstances, be regarded as being contrary to professional diligence or honest commercial practices, and irrespective also of the fact that other legislation besides the Law of 10 November 2006 safeguards employees’ rest periods for the purposes of employment law?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.
Case T-571/11: Action brought on 7 November 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012013EN.01001903.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/19





Action brought on 7 November 2011 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM
(Case T-571/11)
2012/C 13/41
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyer, and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011 in Case R 1946/2010-1;










—


Order the defendant and, where appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs, if that other party appears and contests the action.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Groupe Chez Gerard Restaurants Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CLUB GOURMET’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 29, 30, 32 and 33.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET, EN … El Corte Inglés’, applications for the national word mark ‘EL SITIO DEL GOURMET’ and for the national and Community trade marks ‘CLUB DEL GOURMET’ for services in Class 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.
Case T-570/11: Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes)
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012013EN.01001902.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/19





Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Oetker Nahrungsmittel v OHIM (La qualité est la meilleure des recettes)
(Case T-570/11)
2012/C 13/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: F. Graf von Stosch, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2011 in Case R 1798/2010-G;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘La qualité est la meilleure des recettes’ for goods in Classes 16, 29, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive.
Case T-575/11: Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Inaporc v Commission
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, State aid, control of State aid, meat processing industry, pigmeat








C_2012025EN.01005601.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/56






Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Inaporc v Commission
(Case T-575/11)
(2012/C 25/108)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, Y. Trifounovitch and C. Rexha, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011, State aid NN 10/2010 — France — Tax to finance a national pig and pork producers council (not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union) in so far as it classifies (i) as State aid the action taken by INAPORC between 2004 and 2008 in relation to technical support, assistance with the production and marketing of quality products, research and development, as well as advertising, and (ii) the compulsory voluntary contributions used to finance that action as State resources forming an integral part of the State aid measures referred to above;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies principally on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law: infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the statement of reasons for the contested decision is insufficient having regard to Article 296 TFEU, in that it does not enable the applicant to understand the reasons that led the Commission to consider the criteria established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to State aid to be satisfied in this instance.










2.


Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that, in the contested decision, the Commission:






—


classified as State resources the compulsory voluntary contributions levied by Inaporc, and the action which that professional association takes and finances using those contributions as action imputable to the State;










—


found that there was a selective economic advantage arising from the action taken by Inaporc for the benefit of undertakings engaged in production, processing and distribution in the pigmeat sector;










—


took the view that the action taken by Inaporc may result in distortion of competition imputable to the State aid.
Case C-560/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, equal treatment, health service








C_2012025EN.01003401.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/34






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma (Italy) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Danilo Debiasi v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma
(Case C-560/11)
(2012/C 25/64)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Parma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Danilo Debiasi

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Parma

Question referred

Is there a conflict between national legislation and Community law, in particular between, on the one hand, Articles 19(5) and 19a of Presidential Decree No 633/72 and, on the other, Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) document COM (2001) 260 final of 23 May 2001 and document COM (2000) 348 final of 7 June 2000, and ‘unequal treatment’ as regards the VAT rules applied by the various Member States of the European Union, given that different rates of VAT are applied to the same healthcare services?


(1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1
Case C-558/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 7 November 2011 — SIA ‘Kurcums metal’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2011-11-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Czechia, Russia, Thailand, Türkiye, anti-dumping duty, common customs tariff, originating product, plastics, steel








C_2012013EN.01000802.xml










14.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 13/8





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 7 November 2011 — SIA ‘Kurcums metal’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-558/11)
2012/C 13/16
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SIA ‘Kurcums metal’

Respondent: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Are cables made of polypropylene and steel thread such as those at issue in the present case included under subheading 5607 49 11 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?










2.


Is it necessary, in order to classify cables such as those at issue in the present case, to apply Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?










3.


If the composite cables, made of polypropylene and steel thread, whose maximum transversal section exceeds 3 mm, like those at issue in this case, are nevertheless included under subheading 7312 90 98 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, are such cables also covered by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1601/2001 (2) of 2 August 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel ropes and cables originating in the Czech Republic, Russia, Thailand and Turkey?










4.


Are corrugated clips with rounded tips connected by means of a pin included in subheading 7317 00 90 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?






(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 211, p. 1.