do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-334/11 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark ACNO FOCUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FOCUS — Refusal of registration — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Earlier mark registered for not less than five years)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012194EN.01000801.xml










30.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 194/8





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH
(Case C-334/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark ACNO FOCUS - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FOCUS - Refusal of registration - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Earlier mark registered for not less than five years)
2012/C 194/13
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH (represented by: R. Schweizer and J. Berlinger, Rechtsanwälte)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 April 2011 in Case T-466/08 Lancôme v OHIM by which that Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘ACNO FOCUS’ for goods in Class 3 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 29 July 2008 in Case R 1796/2007-1 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision refusing registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 — Interpretation and application of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Meaning of genuine use of a trade mark

Operative part of the order

The Court (Fifth Chamber):






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-247/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States — Act of Accession of 2003 — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, accession to the European Union, agricultural surplus, surplus stock








C_2012138EN.01001102.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/11






Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Slovakia v Commission
(Case T-247/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted on account of the accession of new Member States - Act of Accession of 2003 - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)
(2012/C 138/18)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: Slovak Republic (represented initially by J. Čorba and subsequently by B. Ricziová, agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Tokár, agents)

Interveners in support of the Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz, and finally by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, agents) and Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 123, p. 14), in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, in so far as it concerns the Slovak Republic;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by the Slovak Republic.






(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.
Case T-547/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT — Prior Community word mark CALCILAN — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Refusal of registration)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, registered trade mark








C_2012138EN.01001701.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/17






Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Omya v OHIM — Alpha Calcit (CALCIMATT)
(Case T-547/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALCIMATT - Prior Community word mark CALCILAN - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Refusal of registration)
(2012/C 138/31)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Omya AG (Oftringen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Kuschmirek and V. Dalichau, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: D. Botis; subsequently by: R. Manea; and finally by: G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: F. Hauck, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2010 (Case R 1370/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Alpha Calcit Füllstoffgesellschaft mbH and Omya AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Omya AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.
Case C-500/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl (Taxation — VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Sixth Directive — Articles 2 and 22 — Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, VAT, judicial proceedings, tax inspection








C_2012151EN.01000602.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Italy) — Ufficio IVA di Piacenza v Belvedere Costruzioni Srl
(Case C-500/10) (1)

(Taxation - VAT - Article 4(3) TEU - Sixth Directive - Articles 2 and 22 - Automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance)
2012/C 151/11
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ufficio IVA di Piacenza

Defendant: Belvedere Costruzioni Srl

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria centrale, sezione di Bologna — Value added tax — Articles 2 and 22 of 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) — Obligation of Member States to ensure the effective recovery of VAT — National legislation providing for the closure, in certain circumstances, of judicial proceedings in tax matters without any ruling on the substance by the court hearing the case at third instance, the decision of the court of second instance thus becoming res iudicata — Claim that the effect is the abandonment of the recovery of harmonised taxes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 2 and 22 of 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 must be interpreted as not precluding the application in value added tax matters of an exceptional provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the automatic conclusion of proceedings pending before the tax court of third instance where those proceedings originate in an application brought at first instance more than 10 years, and in practice more than 14 years, before the date of the entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance, the consequence of that automatic conclusion being that the decision of the court of second instance becomes final and binding and the debt claimed by the tax authorities is extinguished.


(1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.
Case C-150/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law, traveller








C_2012157EN.01000402.xml










2.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 157/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
(Case C-150/12)
2012/C 157/06
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Eva-Marie Brännström and Rune Brännström

Defendant: Ryanair Holdings plc

Questions referred







1.


Does the carrier’s liability for damage caused by delay under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention also include cases where the passengers’ arrival at the destination is delayed as a result of non-operation of a flight? Does any importance attach to the stage at which the flight was cancelled, for example, after check-in?










2.


Can a technical problem with the airport, which alone or together with weather conditions makes landing impossible, constitute an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) Can the assessment of what constitutes such a circumstance be affected by the fact that the airline was already aware of the technical problem?










3.


If the answer to the first question in point 2 is in the affirmative, what measures must the airline take in order to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation?






—


Can the airline be required, and if so on what conditions and to what extent, to have extra resources in the form of, for example, aircraft or crew available to operate a flight which would otherwise have had to be cancelled, or in order to be able to operate a flight in the place of a flight which has been cancelled?










—


Can an airline be required to offer passengers re-routing under Article 8(1)(b) [of the regulation]? In that case what is the obligation as regards carriage, for example, in respect of time of departure and the use of other carriers?














4.


If the answer to the question in point 1 is in the affirmative, is there any difference between the measures which an airline must take to avoid the obligation to pay compensation under Article 5(3) of the regulation and the measures which it must take to avoid liability for damage under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-243/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid in favour of the hotel industry in Sardinia — Recovery)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sardinia, State aid, control of State aid, redemption, tourism








C_2012151EN.01000402.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/4





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
(Case C-243/10) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid in favour of the hotel industry in Sardinia - Recovery)
2012/C 151/07
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (notified under document number C(2008) 2997) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the recipients the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 31.07.2010.
Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10) (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Right of residence — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised — Retention of Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, dual nationality, family migration, migrant worker, residence permit








C_2012151EN.01000301.xml










26.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/3





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)
(Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Right of residence - Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised - Retention of Turkish nationality - Date of naturalisation)
2012/C 151/04
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

Defendants: Tayfun Kahveci (C-7/10), Osman Inan (C-9/10)

Re:

References for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Right of residence for members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Members of the family of a Turkish worker who has been naturalised but has retained Turkish nationality — Date of naturalisation

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that the members of the family of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State can still invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality.


(1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.
Case T-417/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS — Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No injury to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pleasure craft, registered trade mark, shipbuilding, trade-mark law








C_2012138EN.01001502.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/15






Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Poslovni Sistem Mercator v OHIM — Mercator Multihull (MERCATOR STUDIOS)
(Case T-417/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MERCATOR STUDIOS - Earlier national and international figurative marks Mercator and Mercator Slovenska košarica - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No injury to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
(2012/C 138/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. (Ljubljana, Slovenia) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Mercator Multihull, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 July 2009 (Case R 1031/2008-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. and Mercator Multihull, Inc.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Poslovni Sistem Mercator d.d. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.
Case T-262/07: Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States — 2003 Act of Accession — Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination — Objective pursued by a provision of primary law — Decision 2007/361/EC)
Date: 2012-03-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, accession to the European Union, agricultural surplus, surplus stock








C_2012138EN.01001202.xml










12.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/12






Judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2012 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-262/07) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Measures to be adopted as a result of the accession of new Member States - 2003 Act of Accession - Determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar, and the financial consequences of their elimination - Objective pursued by a provision of primary law - Decision 2007/361/EC)
(2012/C 138/20)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, E. Matulionytė and R. Krasuckaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented: initially by T. Nowakowski, subsequently by M. Dowgielewicz and lastly by M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, acting as Agents); and Slovak Republic (represented: initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Lithuania;










3.


Orders the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.