do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-533/09: Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, access to a profession, nationality, notary, public administration








C_2012109EN.01000802.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/8





Order of the President of the Sixth of the Court of 15 December 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-533/09) (1)

2012/C 109/15
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.
Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2011 in Case E-1/11 — Dr A (Free movement of persons — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Protection of public health — Non-discrimination — Proportionality)
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: equal treatment, free movement of persons, physician, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, public health








C_2012307EN.01002201.xml










11.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 307/22





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 15 December 2011
in Case E-1/11
Dr A
(Free movement of persons — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Protection of public health — Non-discrimination — Proportionality)
2012/C 307/08
In Case E-1/11, Dr A — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Statens helsepersonellnemnd (Norwegian Appeal Board for Health Personnel), concerning the interpretation of Directive 2005/36/EC and other EEA law, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 December 2011, the operative part of which is as follows:






—


In principle, Directive 2005/36/EC precludes the authorities of EEA States from applying national rules providing for a right to deny an authorisation as a medical doctor to a migrant applicant from another EEA State who fulfils the requirements under the Directive for a right to mutual recognition of professional qualifications.










—


However, an EEA State may make an authorisation conditional upon the applicant having a knowledge of languages necessary for practising the profession on its territory.










—


Moreover, an EEA State may suspend or withdraw an authorisation to pursue the profession of a medical doctor based on information concerning the personal aptitude of a migrant doctor relating to the professional qualification other than language skills, such as the ones in question, only if such requirements are objectively justified and proportionate to achieve the objective of protecting public health and if the same information would also entail a suspension or withdrawal of authorisation for a national doctor. If such grounds for suspension or withdrawal are available to the competent authorities at the time of assessment, the authorisation may be denied.
Case T-523/11: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2012049EN.01003302.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/33





Order of the President of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Maxima Grupė v OHIM — Bodegas Maximo (MAXIMA PREMIUM)
(Case T-523/11) (1)

2012/C 49/60
Language of the case: English
The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.
Case F-134/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, integration into employment, transfer of pension rights








C_2012065EN.01002303.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/23





Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
(Case F-134/11)
2012/C 65/44
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following the withdrawal of a transfer proposal accepted by the applicants after a reasonable period had elapsed in order to benefit from the possibility of transferring their pension rights

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance in order that they could have access to all relevant information to decide, as necessary, to transfer their pension rights;










—


Order the Commission to pay EUR 500 per month of delay in the sending of an offer, in good and due form, of transfer of the applicants’ pension rights, with effect from the date when the PMO decided to withdraw the offer accepted by the applicants and pension funds, namely 25 January for the first applicant and 5 February for the second applicant, or, at the very latest, with effect from the rejection on 9 March 2011 of their request for assistance;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands, dated 15 December 2011 , in the case of Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and Iceland (Case E-17/11)
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, commercial bank, interest, investment protection, marketing








C_2012128EN.01000901.xml










3.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/9





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hæstiréttur Íslands, dated 15 December 2011, in the case of Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and Iceland
(Case E-17/11)
2012/C 128/05
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter from Hæstiréttur Íslands (Supreme Court of Iceland), which was received at the Court Registry on 16 December 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and Iceland, on the following questions:






1.


Can funds which bank A delivers to bank B, and which B must repay A on a predetermined date, together with interest which has been specially negotiated, be regarded as a deposit in the sense of Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, even though the funds, when they reach B, are not placed in a special account in A’s name, B has not issued any special documents to A recording the receipt of the funds and has not paid premiums in respect of the funds to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund and the funds have not been entered as a deposit in B’s books? It is assumed in this question that banks A and B each hold operating licences as commercial banks in different States in the European Economic Area.










2.


When the first question is answered, is it of any significance whether bank B’s State of domicile has availed itself of the authorisation of Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes (cf. item 1 of Annex I) to exclude deposits by financial institutions from deposit guarantee?










3.


When the first question is answered, is it of any significance whether bank A, which holds a licence to operate as a commercial bank according to the laws of the contracting party in whose territory it operates, does not exercise the authorisation it has, under its operating licence, to accept deposits from the general public, but finances its operations by means of contributions from its owner and through the issue of financial instruments, subsequently re-loaning that money on the so-called interbank market?
Case C-585/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune (Integrated pollution prevention and control — Directive 96/61/EC — Annex I, subheading 6.6(c) — Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows — Inclusion or non-inclusion of places for gilts)
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: industrial pollution, intensive livestock farming, prevention of pollution, swine








C_2012039EN.01000602.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune
(Case C-585/10) (1)

(Integrated pollution prevention and control - Directive 96/61/EC - Annex I, subheading 6.6(c) - Installations for the intensive rearing of pigs with more than 750 places for sows - Inclusion or non-inclusion of places for gilts)
(2012/C 39/09)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Niels Møller

Defendant: Haderslev Kommune

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret — Interpretation of subheading 6.6 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) — Facilities intended for intensive poultry and pig farming having over 750 places for sows — Whether or not to include places for gilts (pigs after first heat which have not yet farrowed)

Operative part of the judgment

The expression ‘places for sows’, in subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that it includes places for gilts (female pigs which have already been serviced, but have not yet farrowed).


(1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.
Case C-119/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark — Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person — Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, brand name, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging, trade-mark law








C_2012039EN.01000301.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/3






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH
(Case C-119/10) (1)

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark - Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person - Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)
(2012/C 39/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the unlawful use of its mark — Use of a sign — Filling of cans already bearing a sign as a service for and under an order from another person — Goods destined exclusively for export to countries outside the Benelux area or the European Union — Relevant public

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, fills packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which is identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark does not itself make use of the sign that is liable to be prohibited under that provision.


(1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.
Special Report No 13/2011 ‘Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?’
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: VAT, administrative check, customs regulations, tax evasion








C_2011365EN.01000601.xml










15.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 365/6





Special Report No 13/2011 ‘Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?’
2011/C 365/07
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 13/2011 ‘Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://www.eca.europa.eu
A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:





European Court of Auditors




Unit ‘Audit: Production of Reports’




12, rue Alcide de Gasperi




1615 Luxembourg




LUXEMBOURG




Tel. +352 4398-1




E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu




or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.
Case T-22/11: Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, banking system, control of State aid








C_2012039EN.01002102.xml










11.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 39/21






Order of the General Court of 15 December 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
(Case T-22/11) (1)

(2012/C 39/41)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.