do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 6 February 2012 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR) (Case E-2/12)
Date: 2012-02-06
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, alcoholic beverage, beverage industry, interpretation of the law, monopoly, packaging, public sector, retail selling, tobacco industry








C_2012291EN.01001301.xml










27.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/13





Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 6 February 2012 in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR)
(Case E-2/12)
2012/C 291/04
A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 6 February 2012 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2012, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of HOB-vín ehf. v the State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland (ÁTVR), on the following questions:






1.


Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for a State enterprise, which has a monopoly on the retail sale of alcohol in the territory of an EEA State, to be permitted under legislation or administrative regulations to refuse to accept for sale alcoholic beverages that are lawfully produced and marketed in another EEA State, on the grounds that the packaging and labelling of the products contain loaded or unrelated information or suggest that alcohol enhances physical, mental, social or sexual function and do not merely relate to the product, its production method or its characteristics?










2.


Is it incompatible with Article 11 EEA for an EEA State to include in its legislation or administrative regulations, rules which require that it be clearly stated on the packaging of alcohol beverages that their contents are alcoholic, and that a State-owned monopoly may refuse to accept such products for sale if the packaging does not meet this requirement?










3.


In answering the first and second questions above, is it of significance whether the legislation or administrative regulations apply equally to domestic and foreign products?










4.


If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above constitutes a quantitative restriction, or a measure having equivalent effects, within the meaning of Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether such an arrangement may nevertheless be considered justifiable with reference to Article 13 EEA.










5.


If it is considered that an arrangement such as the one described in the first and/or second question above, which is based on law or administrative regulations, is incompatible with Article 11 EEA, then it is requested that the EFTA Court state whether it considers that the conditions for State liability are met, to the extent that the EFTA Court assesses this point.
Case T-337/09: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2012 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission
Date: 2012-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, interpretation of the law, pharmacy, professional association








C_2012080EN.01002601.xml










17.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/26





Order of the General Court of 6 February 2012 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission
(Case T-337/09) (1)

2012/C 80/44
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.
Case C-59/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Date: 2012-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising malpractice, comparative advertising, financial institution, health insurance








C_2012138EN.01000201.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/2






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
(Case C-59/12)
(2012/C 138/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law

Respondent on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

Question referred

Is Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 2(d), of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the action of a statutory sickness fund in making (misleading) statements to its members concerning the disadvantages that those members would suffer were they to move to another statutory sickness fund can also constitute an act by a trader in the form of a business-to-consumer commercial practice?


(1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).
Case T-61/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — ABC-One v OHIM (SLIM BELLY)
Date: 2012-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2012098EN.01002602.xml










31.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/26





Action brought on 6 February 2012 — ABC-One v OHIM (SLIM BELLY)
(Case T-61/12)
2012/C 98/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: ABC-One Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH (Villach St. Magdalen, Austria) (represented by S. Merz, lawyer)

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

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 17 November 2011 in Case R 1077/2011-1 concerning the application for registration of the word sign ‘SLIM BELLY’ as a Community trade mark;










—


order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SLIM BELLY’ (application No 8 576 811) for goods and services in Classes 28, 41 and 44

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character and is not descriptive of the goods and services at issue
Case T-48/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament
Date: 2012-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, award of contract, dissemination of information, invitation to tender, translation








C_2012109EN.01001902.xml










14.4.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 109/19





Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament
(Case T-48/12)
2012/C 109/43
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. z.o.o. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought







—


First, annul the decision of 9 December 2011;










—


In the alternative, annul call for tenders No PL/2011/EP;










—


Order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings;










—


Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging abuse of power in that the European Parliament did not communicate, or communicated late, the information requested by the applicant following the reallocation of the contract in the context of a procurement procedure concerning the provision of translation services into Polish. (1)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules and principles of the European Union, including the Financial Regulation, (2) and the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (3) the successful tenderer being debarred when it requested the re-evaluation of its tender and the Parliament therefore no longer being entitled to revisit its decision to award the contract to the applicant without either suspending or annulling the call for tenders.






(1)  OJ 2011/S 56-090361.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).