do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: counterfeiting, euro, issuing of currency, technical regulations








C_2012065EN.01000802.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/8





Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
(Case C-682/11 P)
2012/C 65/16
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.
The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).
Case C-667/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, interpretation of the law, single document, tax collection








C_2012089EN.01000401.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 27 December 2011 — Paltrade EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna
(Case C-667/11)
2012/C 89/06
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Paltrade EOOD

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnicheski punkt — Pristanishte Varna pri Mitnitsa Varna

Questions referred







1.


Is the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty pursuant to Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 (1) of 18 July 2011 permissible, without a customs registration — except for the customs registration of the Single Administrative Document in the BIMIS system — taking place with the registration of the TARIC additional code which is mentioned in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (2) of 26 January 2009?










2.


What is, in accordance with recital 18 of Regulation No 966/2010, (3) the appropriate amount for the retroactive levy of an anti-dumping duty during the execution of Regulation No 723/2011?






(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 29, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 966/2010 of 27 October 2010 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2010 L 282, p. 29).
Case T-663/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012065EN.01001601.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/16





Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
(Case T-663/11)
2012/C 65/30
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1238/2010-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

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) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case F-142/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: EPSO, competition (EU), indemnification, promotion, translation








C_2012065EN.01002601.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/26





Action brought on 27 December 2011 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-142/11)
2012/C 65/51
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD9 after succeeding in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of 9 December 2010 and the subsequent decision of 7 October 2011;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant damages;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.
Case T-664/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, property development, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012065EN.01001602.xml










3.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/16





Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
(Case T-664/11)
2012/C 65/31
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).

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) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-666/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012109EN.01001401.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/14





Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)
(Case T-666/11)
2012/C 109/32
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (Herzogenaurach, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


set aside the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2011 in Case No R 1137/2010-3, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision annulling her design; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design (representation of a puma) registered under No 697016-0001, published on behalf of the applicant in the Community Designs Bulletin of 2 May 2007.

Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the Community design does not satisfy the definition of a design as set out in Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) and also fails to meet the requirements set out in Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002, in addition to other grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of that regulation.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of invalidity of the design.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by reason of the refusal to take account of the individual character of the design notified by the applicant.
Case C-659/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, accounting, advertising, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, provision of services, public sector, redemption, tax, tax system








C_2012049EN.01002101.xml










18.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
(Case C-659/11)
2012/C 49/35
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

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 harmonization 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.