do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-595/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), lighting equipment, originating product








C_2012089EN.01000202.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
(Case C-595/11)
2012/C 89/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

Question referred

Are






(a)


Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (1) of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China
and










(b)


Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 (2) of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines to be interpreted as meaning that they also cover the compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch imported by the claimant and described in greater detail in the order?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1).

(2)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
Case C-591/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, energy production, tradeable emission permit








C_2012039EN.01001002.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/10






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL v Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.
(Case C-591/11)
(2012/C 39/18)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Gas Natural SDG, S.A., Bizcaia Energia, SL

Other parties: Spanish State, Endesa, S.A., Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Iberdrola, S.A.

Question referred

May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.
Case T-600/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01003001.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/30





Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Schuhhaus Dielmann v OHIM — Carrera (Carrera panamericana)
(Case T-600/11)
2012/C 32/62
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Schuhhaus Dielmann GmbH & Co. KG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carrera SpA (Caldiero, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the First board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2011 in Case R 1989/2010-1;










—


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: word mark ‘Carrera panamericana’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: figurative mark containing the word element ‘CARRERA’ for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2011345EN.01000401.xml










25.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

24 November 2011
2011/C 345/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3373




JPY


Japanese yen


103,07




DKK


Danish krone


7,4370




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86060




SEK


Swedish krona


9,2440




CHF


Swiss franc


1,2268




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8310




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,693




HUF


Hungarian forint


309,93




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,6987




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4905




RON


Romanian leu


4,3570




TRY


Turkish lira


2,4911




AUD


Australian dollar


1,3697




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,3964




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,4237




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7971




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7474




KRW


South Korean won


1 541,46




ZAR


South African rand


11,2962




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,5159




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4950




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 280,94




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,2566




PHP


Philippine peso


58,346




RUB


Russian rouble


41,9912




THB


Thai baht


41,817




BRL


Brazilian real


2,4851




MXN


Mexican peso


18,8252




INR


Indian rupee


69,5860






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6369 — HBO/Ziggo/HBO Nederland)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual industry, communications industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2011345EN.01001801.xml










25.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 345/18





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.6369 — HBO/Ziggo/HBO Nederland)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2011/C 345/06






1.


On 17 November 2011, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the ‘Merger Regulation’) (1) by which the undertakings HBO Netherlands Holdings, SRO (‘HBO’, Netherlands) and Ziggo BV (‘Ziggo’, Netherlands) intend to create a full-function joint venture (‘HBO Nederland’, Netherlands) within the meaning of Article 3(4) of the Merger Regulation.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


HBO is a subsidiary of Home Box Office, Inc., a company that produces audiovisual content and operates cable TV channels in certain territories around the world. Home Box Office, Inc., in turn, is a subsidiary of Time Warner Inc., a global media company, with operations in film, TV, and magazine publishing at the worldwide level,










—


Ziggo is a media and communications services provider in the Netherlands. Ziggo’s products and services comprise telephony, internet, radio and TV, data communications and electronic payment systems,










—


HBO Nederland will provide wholesale pay-TV services, including exclusive film and TV series content, to retail pay-TV suppliers in the Netherlands.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by e-mail to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.6369 — HBO/Ziggo/HBO Nederland, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).
Case C-6/11: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Articles 3 and 4 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient)
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, market approval, medicinal product, patent law








C_2012073EN.01001002.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/10





Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Daiichi Sankyo Company v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
(Case C-6/11) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Articles 3 and 4 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient)
2012/C 73/17
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daiichi Sankyo Company

Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division, Patents Court) — Interpretation of Articles 3(a) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient

Operative part of the order

Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.


(1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.
Case C-594/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification








C_2012032EN.01001501.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Christoph Becker v Société Air France SA
(Case C-594/11)
2012/C 32/27
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Christoph Becker

Defendant: Société Air France SA

Question referred

Is a passenger entitled to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if the departure time of a flight has been delayed for a period of time falling within the limits defined in Article 6(1) of the regulation, but the flight arrives at the final destination at least three hours after the scheduled time of arrival?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, energy industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002903.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/29





Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
(Case T-599/11)
2012/C 32/61
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Eni SpA (Roma, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EMI (IP) 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 8 September 2011 in case R 2439/2010-1; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENI’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 25 and 35 to 45 — Community trade mark application No 6488076

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 4197315 of the word mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 6167357 of the figurative mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant challenges the mentioned decision of the First Board of Appeal on the following three grounds: (i) erroneous and non-motivated finding of similarity of goods and services, based on the misunderstanding and misapplication of previous case-law on the point; (ii) erroneous interpretation and application of the Praktiker case, denoting a misunderstanding of its anti-monopolistic inspiring principles and in particular of the ratio that inspired the introduction of registrability of retail services; and (iii) erroneous finding of similarity of signs, and erroneous finding of likelihood of confusion.
Case C-603/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres (France) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, equal treatment, mutual assistance scheme, social-security benefit








C_2012039EN.01001003.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/10






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres (France) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Hervé Fontaine v Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale
(Case C-603/11)
(2012/C 39/19)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juridiction de Proximité de Chartres

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hervé Fontaine

Defendant: Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale

Question referred

Do Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — signed at Lisbon on 13 December 2007 and which entered into force in France on 1 December 2009 — preclude national legislation such as that arising from Article L 112-1 of the French Code de la Mutualité (the Code governing mutual companies), in so far as the interpretation of that legislation would prohibit mutual companies providing supplementary health insurance from varying their benefits according to the conditions for issuing certificates and the services provided, whereas such a restriction is not imposed on other companies also providing supplementary health insurance whether governed by the Code des Assurances (the Insurance Code) or the Code de la Sécurité Sociale (the Social Security Code)?
Case C-13/11: Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Maria das Dores Meira da Silva v Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, compulsory insurance, insurance indemnity, interpretation of the law, pedestrian, transport accident, vehicle








C_2012073EN.01002503.xml










10.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/25





Order of the President of the Court of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — Maria das Dores Meira da Silva v Zurich — Companhia de Seguros SA
(Case C-13/11) (1)

2012/C 73/45
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
Case C-608/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 against the Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v European Commission
Date: 2011-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, access to EU information, nuclear power station








C_2012025EN.01004301.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/43






Appeal brought on 25 November 2011 against the Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 Land Wien v European Commission
(Case C-608/11 P)
(2012/C 25/80)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Land Wien (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


revise the order of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 20 September 2011 in Case T-267/10 so as to take full account of the substance of its claim;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal has been brought against the order to the General Court of 20 September 2011, by which that court dismissed the appellant's action seeking, essentially, the annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 March 2010 to discontinue the procedure relating to the appellant's complaint concerning a plan to expand units 3 an 4 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in the Slovak Republic, and a declaration that the Commission has failed to act, within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU, since it failed to communicate all of the documents requested in that regard in infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1)

The General Court infringed the Euratom Treaty in failing to interpret it in the light of the TFEU. The General Court failed to recognise that the TFEU declares as a legally enforceable right the right of access to documents laid down in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which the appellant may rely directly to obtain from the Commission all the information which it retained in relation to the expansion of the nuclear power station in Mochovce.
Contrary to what the General Court found, the Commission's letter in response to the question put by the appellant constitutes a challengeable decision for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU. This results from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and in particular from its judgment of 11 November 1981 in Case 60/81 (IBM).


(1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.