do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-604/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 12 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 28 November 2011 — Genil 48 S.L. and Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos S.L. v Bankinter S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, consumer protection, financial instrument, unfair terms of contract








C_2012032EN.01001502.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 12 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 28 November 2011 — Genil 48 S.L. and Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos S.L. v Bankinter S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.
(Case C-604/11)
2012/C 32/28
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 12 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Genil 48 S.L. and Comercial Hostelera de Grandes Vinos S.L.

Defendants: Bankinter S.A. and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Must the offering to a client of an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on other financial products be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point [(4)] of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive (1)?










2.


Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of that directive for a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the contract entered into between the investor and the investment institution?










3.


In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the contract?










4.


Does the fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to other financial products constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligations to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by Article 19 of the MiFID Directive which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?










5.


In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?






(1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).
Case T-598/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01002902.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/29





Action brought on 28 November 2011 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)
(Case T-598/11)
2012/C 32/60
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

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 15 September 2011 in Case R 131/2011-1;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘Lean Performance Index’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35 and 42.

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive and not descriptive.
Case T-616/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10, Marcuccio v Commission
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, legal expenses








C_2012025EN.01006501.xml










28.1.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/65






Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 September 2011 in Case F-69/10, Marcuccio v Commission
(Case T-616/11 P)
(2012/C 25/124)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought by the appellant







—


Grant all the appellant’s claims in the proceedings at first instance;










—


Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of the costs incurred by him in the appeal proceedings;










—


In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision on each of the claims referred to in the preceding paragraphs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal is brought against the order of 8 September 2011 in Case T-69/10 dismissing as manifestly unfounded in law an action seeking, first, annulment of the decision by which the Commission rejected the appellant’s claim for compensation for the damage arising, in his view, as a result of the fact that, in the case giving rise to the judgment of 10 June 2008 in Case T-18/04 Marcucio v Commission, a note relating to the payment of the costs of those proceedings was sent to his legal representative in those proceedings and, second, an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage.
The appellant relies on two grounds in support of his appeal.






1.


First ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons with regard to the ‘claims seeking compensation’ (between paragraphs 21 and 22 of the order under appeal) and manifest uncertainty, inconsistent reasoning, failure to conduct a proper investigation, distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, self-evident, illogical, irrelevant and unreasonable reasoning, incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the rules of law relating to the incurring of Aquilian liability on the part of the institutions of the European Union, of the concept of the duty to state reasons incumbent on all European Union institutions and the European Union judicature, of the concept of analogy and of the concept of unlawful conduct on the part of a European Union institution.










2.


Second ground, alleging that the rulings of the court at first instance on ‘the costs of the proceedings and legal costs’ (between paragraphs 28 and 29 of the order under appeal) are unlawful.
Case C-599/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012133EN.01001401.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/14





Appeal brought on 28 November 2011 by TofuTown.com GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2011 in Case T-99/10 Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-599/11 P)
2012/C 133/25
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: TofuTown.com GmbH (represented by: B. Krause, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


order Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal, or, on the contested basis that the appeal is dismissed, order that such costs be shared.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present appeal has been brought against the judgment of the General Court by which that Court annulled the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and TofuTown.com GmbH.
In the appellant’s view the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds.
First, the General Court erred in law in determining, under new criteria, that there was a likelihood of confusion in the light of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. According to the judgment under appeal, it is sufficient, in order for the existence of a conceptual similarity to be established, that both terms are taken from a common overarching term, and that, although conceptually different, they do not contrast with each other, which is inconsistent with existing case-law.
Second, the General Court erred in law in determining that there was a likelihood of confusion without taking all the relevant and accepted criteria for the assessment of the similarity of trade marks into account. In the present case, the only common element is at the end of the mark cited in opposition. According to settled case-law, consumers generally pay more attention to the beginning of a trade mark than to the end.
Case T-604/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2012032EN.01003101.xml










4.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/31





Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
(Case T-604/11)
2012/C 32/64
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in case R 1695/2010-4 and reject the opposition No B 1383639; and










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 6588991

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the applied mark.
Council Decision 2011/764/CFSP of 28 November 2011 repealing Decision 2011/210/CFSP on a European Union military operation in support of humanitarian assistance operations in response to the crisis situation in Libya (EUFOR Libya)
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU military mission, Libya, auditing, humanitarian aid








L_2011314EN.01003501.xml










29.11.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 314/35








            COUNCIL DECISION 2011/764/CFSP
of 28 November 2011
         
repealing Decision 2011/210/CFSP on a European Union military operation in support of humanitarian assistance operations in response to the crisis situation in Libya (EUFOR Libya)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal made by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 1 April 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/210/CFSP (1).












(2)


By letter dated 27 October 2011, the European Union Operation Commander notified the closure of the Operational Headquarters on 10 November 2011. Decision 2011/210/CFSP should therefore be repealed pursuant to Article 13(3) thereof, with effect from 10 November 2011.












(3)


Council Decision 2008/975/CFSP of 18 December 2008 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena) (2) determines the procedures for the audit and presentation of the accounts of an operation,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Decision 2011/210/CFSP is hereby repealed with effect from 10 November 2011. This repeal shall be without prejudice to the procedures laid down in Decision 2008/975/CFSP regarding the audit and presentation of the accounts of the operation.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 28 November 2011.


For the Council


The President

K. SZUMILAS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 89, 5.4.2011, p. 17.

(2)  
            OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, p. 96.
Case C-606/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative procedure, general legal principle, interpretation of the law, redemption








C_2012065EN.01000301.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2011 — Grattan plc v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
(Case C-606/11)
2012/C 65/05
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Grattan plc

Defendant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Questions referred

If the Court of Justice concludes that the answer to the Question 1 referred in the case of Littlewoods Retail Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Case C-591/10) is in the negative:






1.


Do the EU law principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence require the remedy for an overpayment of VAT in breach of EU law to be a single remedy for both the reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid and for the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?;










2.


In circumstances where there are alternative remedies under domestic law, is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence for the remedy or remedies not to be in the statutory provisions governing the making of the principal reimbursement claims and the appeals from administrative decisions on those claims?; and










3.


Is it a breach of the principles of effectiveness and/or of equivalence to require a claimant to pursue the principal reimbursement claim and the claim for simple interest in one set of proceedings before the Tax Tribunal and the balance of the remedy required by EU law in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest in separate proceedings before the High Court?
Case F-125/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-11-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, admission to examinations, assistant, competition (EU), indemnification, right to information








C_2012065EN.01002101.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/21





Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-125/11)
2012/C 65/38
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision refusing the applicant the right to participate in the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AST/111/10 — Secretaries grade AST 1;










—


reintegrate the applicant into the recruitment process in that competition, if necessary, by organising new assessment tests;










—


in any event, request EPSO to take note of the information at its disposal regarding the results obtained by all of the candidates in tests (d) and (e);










—


in the alternative, if the main claim is not upheld, quod non, to pay the provisional sum, ex aequo et bono, of EUR 50 000;










—


in any event, pay the provisional sum, ex aequo and bono, of EUR 50 000 in non-material damages.