do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-231/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, regulation of telecommunications








C_2012217EN.01001002.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-231/12)
2012/C 217/20
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.


(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Case C-234/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Sky Italia s.r.l. v AGCOM
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, broadcasting, dominant position, equal treatment, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, market supervision, pay television, right of establishment








C_2012217EN.01001102.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Sky Italia s.r.l. v AGCOM
(Case C-234/12)
2012/C 217/23
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sky Italia s.r.l.

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni (AGCOM)

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 4 of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1) the general principle of equality and the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union relating to the free movement of services, the right of establishment and the free movement of capital be interpreted as precluding the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters?










2.


Does Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and does the principle of pluralism in the media, in particular, preclude the rules in Article 38(5) of Legislative Decree No 177/2005 which lay down shorter hourly advertising limits for pay-TV broadcasters than for free-to-air broadcasters, distorting competition and creating — or rather strengthening — dominant positions in the television advertising market?






(1)  OJ 2010, L 95, p. 1.
Case C-477/11 P: Order of the Court of 14 May 2012 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission (Appeals — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Medicinal products for human use — Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ — Marketing authorisation — Procedure — Statement of position by the Commission — Status of ‘new active substance’ — Concept of ‘actionable measure’ )
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Medicines Agency, market approval, medicinal product








C_2012303EN.01000601.xml










6.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/6





Order of the Court of 14 May 2012 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-477/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Medicinal products for human use - Active substance ‘eszopiclone’ - Marketing authorisation - Procedure - Statement of position by the Commission - Status of ‘new active substance’ - Concept of ‘actionable measure’)
2012/C 303/10
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, solicitor, D. Anderson QC, and J. Stratford, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2011 in Case T-275/09 P Sepracor Pharmaceuticals v Commission, dismissing as inadmissible an application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 6 May 2009 finding, in the context of the procedure for granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal product ‘Lunivia’, produced by the appellant, that the active substance ‘eszopiclone’, which it contains, does not constitute a new active substance within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) — Concept of actionable measure

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Sepracor Pharmaceuticals Ltd is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case C-228/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, regulation of telecommunications








C_2012217EN.01000901.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Vodafone Omnitel Nv v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
(Case C-228/12)
2012/C 217/17
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodafone Omnitel Nv

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.


(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Case C-233/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale della Spezia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Simone Gardella v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, pension scheme








C_2012217EN.01001101.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/11





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale della Spezia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Simone Gardella v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
(Case C-233/12)
2012/C 217/22
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale della Spezia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Simone Gardella

Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 20, 45, 48 and 145 to 147 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation or national administrative practice which do not permit a worker who is a national of a Member State to transfer to the pension scheme of an international body situated in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, where he works and is insured, the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his own State, where he was previously insured?










2.


As a consequence of the circumstances set out in Question 1, should it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of any specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the international body on the other?’
Case C-226/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, building industry, unfair terms of contract








C_2012227EN.01001201.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo (Spain) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Constructora Principado, S.A. v José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez
(Case C-226/12)
2012/C 227/17
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Constructora Principado, S.A.

Defendant: José Ignacio Menéndez Álvarez

Question referred

In the case of a contractual term which passes on to the consumer payment of an amount which by law is payable by the seller or supplier, is the imbalance referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 (1) to be interpreted as arising merely from the act of passing on to the consumer an obligation to pay which by law falls on the seller or supplier, or does the fact that the Directive requires the imbalance to be significant mean that, in addition, the financial burden on the consumer must be significant in relation to the total amount of the transaction?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Case C-230/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, regulation of telecommunications








C_2012217EN.01001001.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
(Case C-230/12)
2012/C 217/19
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WIND Telecomunicazioni SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.


(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Case C-235/12 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding AG v European Commission
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, European Commission, contractual liability, indemnification, infringement of EU law, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2013114EN.01002201.xml










20.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/22





Appeal brought on 14 May 2012 against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber Chamber) delivered on 2 March 2012 in Case T-594/11 H-Holding AG v European Commission
(Case C-235/12 P)
2013/C 114/32
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: H-Holding AG (represented by: R. Závodný, advokát)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal by order of 28 February 2013 and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Council Decision 2012/255/CFSP of 14 May 2012 amending Decision 2011/427/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Afghanistan, diplomatic representation, financing level




L_2012126EN.01000801.xml










15.5.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 126/8








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/255/CFSP
of 14 May 2012
         
amending Decision 2011/427/CFSP extending the mandate of the European Union Special Representative in Afghanistan


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, Article 28, Article 31(2) and Article 33 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 March 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/168/CFSP (1) appointing Mr Vygaudas USACKAS as European Union Special Representative (‘EUSR’) in Afghanistan.












(2)


On 18 July 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/427/CFSP (2) extending the mandate of the EUSR until 30 June 2012. The financial reference amount provided for to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR until that date was set at EUR 3 560 000. The financial reference amount should be increased in order to allow for additional operational needs of the EUSR.












(3)


Decision 2011/427/CFSP should be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 5(1) of Decision 2011/427/CFSP shall be replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the mandate of the EUSR in the period from 1 September 2011 to 30 June 2012 shall be EUR 3 860 000.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 14 May 2012.


For the Council


The President

C. ASHTON
            





(1)  
            OJ L 75, 23.3.2010, p. 22.

(2)  
            OJ L 188, 19.7.2011, p. 34.
Case T-217/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012217EN.01002502.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/25





Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Shark v OHIM — Monster Energy (UNLEASH THE BEAST!)
(Case T-217/12)
2012/C 217/54
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Shark AG (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: D. Campbell, Barrister, and P. Strickland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States)

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 1 March 2012 in case R 360/2011-1; and










—


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





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘UNLEASH THE BEAST!’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark registration No 5093174

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration No 2729366 of the word mark ‘BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32; Community trade mark registration No 2730133 of the figurative mark ‘COOL BITE BRING OUT THE BEAST’, for goods in class 32

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the invalidity of the contested community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-211/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012209EN.01001202.xml










14.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/12





Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Hübner v OHIM — Silesia Gerhard Hanke (Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel)
(Case T-211/12)
2012/C 209/21
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG (Ehrenkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kirchgäßner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG (Neuss, Germany)

Form of order sought







—


Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in case R 351/2011-1 as follows: The decision of the Opposition Division is annulled to the extent to which it has been the subject of the appeal, and the opposition is rejected in its entirety;










—


Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred during the appeal procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anton Hübner GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Original silicea Kieselsäure-Gel’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — application No 8 178 576

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Silesia Gerhard Hanke GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Silesia’ for goods in Classes 2, 3, 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-232/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, interpretation of the law, regulation of telecommunications








C_2012217EN.01001003.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
(Case C-232/12)
2012/C 217/21
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fastweb SpA

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

Question referred

Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.


(1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.
Case C-453/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark representing a watch — Refusal of registration — Lack of distinctiveness)
Date: 2012-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012303EN.01000403.xml










6.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/4





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 May 2012 — Timehouse GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-453/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Three-dimensional mark representing a watch - Refusal of registration - Lack of distinctiveness)
2012/C 303/07
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Timehouse GmbH (represented by: V. Knies, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Klüpfel, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 6 July 2011 in Case T-235/10 Timehouse v OHIM (Shape of a watch with scalloped edges), by which the General Court dismissed an action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 March 2010 (Case R 0492/2009-1) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a watch — Lack of distinctiveness

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Timehouse GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011.