do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-106/12: Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012138EN.01001801.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/18






Action brought on 29 February 2012 — Cytochroma Development v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
(Case T-106/12)
(2012/C 138/34)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (St. Michael, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

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 2 December 2011 in case R 1235/2011-1; and










—


Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALPHAREN’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 4320297

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: Hungarian trade mark registration No 134972 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 20613 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M30407 of the word mark ‘ALPHA D3’, for goods in class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original decision was also a member of the Board that took the new decision after referral; infringement of Article 65(6) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 1(d)(1) of Commission Regulation No 216/96 regarding the measures taken to comply with the judgment of the General Court; Infringement of Article 76(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 in relation to the examination of facts of its own motion in a relative grounds case; infringement of the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Case C-105/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Essent Nederland BV
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, free movement of capital, privatisation, public sector, restriction on competition, shareholding








C_2012151EN.01001503.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Staat der Nederlanden v Essent NV and Essent Nederland BV
(Case C-105/12)
2012/C 151/26
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staat der Nederlanden
Respondents: 






 


Essent NV










 


Essent Nederland BV





Questions referred







1.


Must Article 345 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the ‘rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’ also include the rule in respect of the absolute ban on privatisation which is at issue in the present case, as set out in the Besluit aandelen netbeheerders (Decree on shares in system operators), in conjunction with Article 93 of the Elektriciteitswet 1998 (1998 Law on electricity) and Article 85 of the Gaswet (Law on gas), under which shares in a system operator can be transferred only within the circle of public authorities?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does this then have the effect that the rules relating to the free movement of capital are not applicable to the group ban and to the ban on secondary activities, or at least that a review of the group ban and of the ban on secondary activities in the light of the rules relating to the free movement of capital is not required?










3.


Are the objectives which also form the basis of the Won (Wet onafhankelijk netbeheer) (Law on independent network operation), that is to say, to achieve transparency in the energy market and to prevent distortions of competition by opposing cross-subsidisation in the broad sense (including strategic information exchange), purely economic interests, or can they also be regarded as interests of a non-economic nature, in the sense that in certain circumstances, as compelling reasons in the general interest, they may constitute a justification for a restriction of the free movement of capital?
Case C-111/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, architecture, diploma, interpretation of the law, migrant worker








C_2012151EN.01001702.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali and Others v Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Others
(Case C-111/12)
2012/C 151/30
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Ordini degli Ingegneri delle Province di Venezia, di Padova, di Treviso, di Vicenza, di Verona e Provincia, di Rovigo e di Belluno

Respondents: Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia, Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri, Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Alessandro Mosconi, Comune di S. Martino Buon Albergo, Ordine degli Architetti, Pianificatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori della Provincia di Verona, Istituzione di Ricovero e di Educazione di Venezia (IRE), Ordine degli Architetti di Venezia

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 10 and 11 of Council Directive 85/384/EEC, (1) which for a transitional period allow nationals of other Member States holding qualifications specifically mentioned to practise in the architectural sector, preclude Italy from lawfully operating an administrative practice having as its legal basis Article 52, second indent, first part, of Royal Decree No 2537 of 1925, which specifically reserves certain operations relating to buildings of artistic interest exclusively to persons holding the qualification of ‘architect’ or to persons who demonstrate that they have completed courses in the heritage sector specific to cultural assets and ancillary assets in addition to the requirements authorising general access to the provision of architectural services within the terms of Directive 85/384/EEC?










2.


In particular, may that administrative practice consist in subjecting professionals from Member States other than Italy, even where they possess qualifications which in general make them suitable for practising as architects, to a specific examination of professional suitability, that is to say, to the authorisation to practise as an architect, which applies also to Italian professionals in the examination to establish their suitability to practise as architects, for the sole purposes of obtaining access to the professional activities referred to in Article 52, second indent, first part, of Royal Decree No [2537] of 1925?






(1)  OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15.
Case C-104/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, lawyer, provision of services, tax relief








C_2012138EN.01000501.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/5






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), lodged on 29 February 2012 — Finanzamt Köln-Nord v Wolfram Becker
(Case C-104/12)
(2012/C 138/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Köln-Nord

Respondent to the appeal on a point of law: Wolfram Becker

Questions referred







1.


Is the direct and immediate link, which is regarded by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union as being determinant for interpreting the term ‘for the purposes of his taxable transactions’ within the meaning of Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC, (1) to be determined:






—


according to the objective content of the supply acquired by the taxable person (in the present case: the activity of a criminal defence lawyer with a view to preventing the conviction of a natural person); or










—


according to the fact which gave rise to the supply acquired (in the present case: the economic activity of the taxable person during which a criminal act was purportedly committed by a natural person)?














2.


If the fact which gave rise to the supply is determinant: Is a taxable person who commissions a supply together with an employee entitled to deduct input tax in full or only in part under Article 17(2)(a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and, where a supply is acquired by several recipients, what requirements exist as to the issuing of the invoice pursuant to the fifth indent of Article 22(3)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC?






(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).
Corrigendum to Council Decision (2010/570/EU, Euratom) of 13 September 2010 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015 ( OJ L 251, 25.9.2010 )
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, European Economic and Social Committee, appointment of members








L_2012055EN.01003501.xml










29.2.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/35







Corrigendum to Council Decision (2010/570/EU, Euratom) of 13 September 2010 appointing the members of the European Economic and Social Committee for the period from 21 September 2010 to 20 September 2015
         
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 251 of 25 September 2010
)

On page 16, Annex, Members, France:
for:


                  ‘M. Jean-Paul PANZANI

Membre du comité exécutif, président de la Fédération nationale de la mutualité française (FNMF)
                  ’,

read:


                  ‘M. Jean-Paul PANZANI

Vice-président de la Fédération nationale de la mutualité française (FNMF) et président de la Fédération des mutuelles de France (FMF)
                  ’.
Case F-100/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — AM v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Insurance against accidents and occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal to recognise the accidental cause of a stroke — Medical committee — Principle of collegiality)
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, occupational accident, occupational accident insurance








C_2012138EN.01002503.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/25






Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 February 2012 — AM v Parliament
(Case F-100/10) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Insurance against accidents and occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise the accidental cause of a stroke - Medical committee - Principle of collegiality)
(2012/C 138/51)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AM (Málaga, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and S. Seyr, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision refusing to regard the stroke suffered by the applicant on 5 March 2006 as an accident within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Art. 2 of the JSIS.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AM to pay all the costs.






(1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011, p.37.
Case C-109/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 February 2012 — Laboratoires Lyocentre
Date: 2012-02-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, market approval, medicinal product, pharmacology, plant health product, protective clause








C_2012133EN.01002001.xml










5.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 29 February 2012 — Laboratoires Lyocentre
(Case C-109/12)
2012/C 133/36
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Laboratoires Lyocentre

Other parties: Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto

Questions referred







1.


Does a definition given in one Member State in accordance with the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC (1), by which a product is regarded as a healthcare device or accessory in accordance with the Devices Directive and is provided with a CE marking, preclude the competent national authority of another Member State from defining the product concerned, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effects, as a medicinal product in accordance with Article 1(2)(b) of the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC? (2)











2.


If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can that competent national authority define the product as a medicinal product observing only the procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC or is it necessary, prior to initiating procedures under the Medicinal Products Directive to define the product as a medicinal product, to follow the safeguard clause procedure in Article 8 of the Devices Directive or to comply with the provisions of Article 18 concerning an unduly affixed CE marking?










3.


Does the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC, the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC or European Union legislation otherwise (including the protection of human health and life and consumer protection) preclude products containing the same substance and having the same functions from being on the market in the same Member State both as medicinal products in accordance with the Medicinal Products Directive 2001/83/EC, requiring a marketing authorisation, and as healthcare devices or accessories in accordance with the Devices Directive 93/42/EEC?






(1)  Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1.

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.