do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-365/11 P: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — AO v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Time-limit for appeal — Late submission — Signed original of the appeal lodged out of time — Unforeseeable circumstances — Article 43(6) of Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, damages, freedom of self-determination, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2012039EN.01001403.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/14






Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — AO v Commission
(Case T-365/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Time-limit for appeal - Late submission - Signed original of the appeal lodged out of time - Unforeseeable circumstances - Article 43(6) of Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(2012/C 39/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: AO (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Lewisch, lawyer)

Other party to the procedure: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 April 2011 in Case F-45/10 AO v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that order set aside.

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


AO shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Joined Cases T-528/10, T-69/11 and T-77/11: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO and Truvo)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2012039EN.01002101.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/21






Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO and Truvo)
(Joined Cases T-528/10, T-69/11 and T-77/11) (1)

(2012/C 39/40)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, OJ C 89, 19.3.2011 and OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.
Case C-637/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, advertising, basis of tax assessment, provision of services








C_2012049EN.01001702.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-637/11)
2012/C 49/29
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

Defendant: Fazenda Pública

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 16(1) of the CIVA [VAT Code], as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax is inherent in the supply of advertising services, so that it should be included in the taxable amount of the supply of services for the purposes of VAT), compatible with Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) (now Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for such supplies’?










2.


Is Article 16(6)(c) of the CIVA, as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax does not constitute an amount paid in the name and on behalf of the customer of the services, even though it is accounted for in third party suspense accounts and is intended to be paid to public bodies, so that it is not excluded from the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT) compatible with Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘amounts received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which are entered in his books in a suspense account’?






(1)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-402/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission (Application for interim measures — Claim for remission of import duties of some food products — Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities — Applications for interim measures — Inadmissibility — No urgency)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, customs, foodstuff, import licence








C_2012039EN.01001501.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/15






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Preparados Alimenticios del Sur v Commission
(Case T-402/11 R)
(Application for interim measures - Claim for remission of import duties of some food products - Decision to refer the documents in the case to the national authorities - Applications for interim measures - Inadmissibility - No urgency)
(2012/C 39/30)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant(s): Preparados Alimenticios del Sur, SL (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: I. Acero Campos, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and L. Bouyon, Agents)

Re:

Applications for interim measures, including suspension of operation of the letter of the Commission of 29 June 2011 informing the applicant of the reference to the Spanish authorities of the documents in the case relating to its claim for remission of import duties, so that those authorities can rule on that claim.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-579/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Akhras v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Syria — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation and provisional measures — Lack of urgency — Lack of serious and irreparable harm)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, capital movement, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012039EN.01001502.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/15






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Akhras v Council
(Case T-579/11 R)
(Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Syria - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation and provisional measures - Lack of urgency - Lack of serious and irreparable harm)
(2012/C 39/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tarif Akhras (Homs, Syria) (represented by: S. Ashley and S. Millar, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

Re:

In essence, application for provisional measures and suspension of operation of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16), Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18), in so far as those texts refer to the applicant

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is rejected.










2.


Costs are reserved.
Case C-638/11 P: Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Pakistan, anti-dumping duty, cotton, import (EU), infringement of EU law, natural fibre, tariff preference








C_2012065EN.01000502.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/5





Appeal brought on 12 December 2011 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 27 September 2011 in Case T-199/04: Gul Ahmed v Council of the European Union, supported by European Commission
(Case C-638/11 P)
2012/C 65/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested judgment (judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2011 in case T-199/04 in so far as the General Court (i) annulled Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan (‘Contested Regulation’) and (ii) ordered the Council to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Applicant);










—


dismiss the third limb of the fifth plea of the Application;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for the remainder of the Application;










—


order the Applicant to pay the costs of the appeal; and










—


reserve costs for the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Council submits that the General Court erred in finding that the abolition of the previous anti-dumping duties on bed linen from Pakistan and the implementation of a scheme of generalised tariff preferences in favour of Pakistan at the start of 2002 constituted ‘other factors’ within the meaning of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. Consequently, the General Court erred in finding that in the present case the institutions committed a violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic Regulation because they failed to separate and distinguish the alleged injurious effects of these factors.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 397/2004 of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan
OJ L 66, p. 1
Case T-365/07: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA) (Trade mark — Action for annulment — Applicant’s failure to proceed — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical medium, record, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012039EN.01001301.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/13






Order of the General Court of 12 December 2011 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)
(Case T-365/07) (1)

(Trade mark - Action for annulment - Applicant’s failure to proceed - No need to adjudicate)
(2012/C 39/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Traxdata France SARL (Paris, France) (represented initially by F. Valentin, B. Amaudric du Chaffaut and G. Courtois, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ritrax Corporation Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M.H. Blair, M.J. Gilbert, S.S. Malynicz and C.A.N. Balme, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2007 (Joined Cases R 1337/2005-1, R 1338/2005-1, R 1339/2005-1 and R 1340/2005-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Ritrax Corporation Ltd and Traxdata France SARL.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on this action.










2.


Traxdata France SARL is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.