do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-273/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, customs warehouse, theft








C_2012235EN.01000902.xml










4.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières v Harry Winston SARL
(Case C-273/12)
2012/C 235/17
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation (Supreme Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Director-General of Customs and Indirect Taxes), Chef de l’agence de poursuites de la Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (Head of the Investigation Agency of the National Directorate of Customs Information and Inquiries)

Defendant: Harry Winston SARL

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 206 of Council Regulation No 2913/92 92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the theft, in the circumstances of the present case, of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure constitutes the irretrievable loss of the goods and a case of force majeure, with the consequence that, in that situation, no customs debt on importation is deemed to have been incurred?










2.


Is the theft of goods held under the customs warehousing procedure such as to give rise to the chargeable event and to cause the value added tax to become chargeable pursuant to Article 71 of [Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax]? (2)







(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case C-276/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct tax, interpretation of the law, mutual assistance, right to information, taxpayer








C_2012273EN.01000302.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu
(Case C-276/12)
2012/C 273/04
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jiří Sabou

Defendant: Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

Questions referred







1.


Does it follow from European Union law that a taxpayer has the right to be informed of a decision of the tax authorities to make a request for information in accordance with Directive 77/799/EEC? (1) Does the taxpayer have the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State? If the taxpayer does not derive such rights from European Union law, is it possible for domestic law to confer similar rights on him?










2.


Does a taxpayer have the right to take part in the examination of witnesses in the requested State in the course of dealing with a request for information under Directive 77/799/EEC? Is the requested Member State obliged to inform the taxpayer beforehand of when the witness will be examined, if it has been requested to do so by the requesting Member State?










3.


Are the tax authorities in the requested Member State obliged, when providing information in accordance with Directive 77/799/EEC, to observe a certain minimum content of their answer, so that it is clear from what sources and by what method the requested tax authorities have obtained the information provided? May the taxpayer challenge the correctness of the information thus provided, for example on grounds of procedural defects of the proceedings in the requested State which preceded the provision of the information? Or does the principle of mutual trust and cooperation apply, according to which the information provided by the requested tax authorities may not be called in question?






(1)  Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation (OJ 1977 L 336, p. 15).
Case T-395/11: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (Actions for annulment — Public supply contracts — Tender procedure — Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting — Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro — No legal capacity to be a defendant — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Montenegro, administrative contract, broadcasting, digitisation, invitation to tender








C_2012227EN.01002102.xml










28.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/21





Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Elti v Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro
(Case T-395/11) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Public supply contracts - Tender procedure - Digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting - Decision awarding the contract taken by the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro - No legal capacity to be a defendant - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 227/35
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Elti d.o.o. (Gornja Radgona, Slovenia) (represented by: N. Zidar Klemenčič, lawyer)

Defendant: Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro (represented by: initially N. Bertolini, acting as Agent, subsequently J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of the decision of the Head of the Delegation of the European Union to Montenegro of 21 March 2011 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the public procurement procedure for the supply of equipment for the digitalisation of the Montenegrin Public Broadcasting and, by way of corollary claim, of the decision to award that contract to another undertaking and, in the alternative, for damages

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Elti d.o.o. shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case T-246/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Cat Media Pty v OHIM — Avon Products (RETANEW)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012243EN.01002501.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/25





Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Cat Media Pty v OHIM — Avon Products (RETANEW)
(Case T-246/12)
2012/C 243/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Cat Media Pty Ltd (Warriewood, Australia) (represented by: I. De Freitas, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, 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 21 March 2012 in case R 740/2011-1;










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the appellant’s costs in relation to these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RETANEW’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No W00884450

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: Community trade mark registration No 3531051 of the word mark ‘ANEW’ for goods in classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and refused the application in its entirety

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-275/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, education grant, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, school abroad








C_2012250EN.01000902.xml










18.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 4 June 2012 — Samantha Elrick v Bezirksregierung Köln
(Case C-275/12)
2012/C 250/16
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Samantha Elrick

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Question referred

Do Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude a rule of national law according to which a German national who has her permanent residence in Germany and attends an educational establishment in a Member State of the European Union is refused a study grant under the Bundesausbildungsförderungsgesetz (BAföG) in respect of her attendance at that foreign educational establishment because the educational course attended abroad is of only one year’s duration, whereas she could have received a study grant under the BAföG for comparable studies in Germany, which would also have lasted for one year?
Case T-440/09: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission (Extra-contractual liability — Agriculture — Bird flu — Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector — Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available — Equal treatment and non-discrimination — No causal link — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: avian influenza, contractual liability, equal treatment, poultry, poultry farming, sales aid








C_2012217EN.01002202.xml










21.7.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/22





Order of the General Court of 4 June 2012 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission
(Case T-440/09) (1)

(Extra-contractual liability - Agriculture - Bird flu - Exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector - Non-inclusion of quails among the poultry types for which compensation is available - Equal treatment and non-discrimination - No causal link - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
2012/C 217/47
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione (Orgiano, Italy) (represented by: F. Tosello, S. Rizzioli and C. Pauly, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

Re:

Action for damages seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States (OJ 2006 L 180, p. 3), in so far as that regulation does not provide for such measures in favour of poultry farmers active in the farming and marketing of quails.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being manifestly devoid of any basis in law.










2.


Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl — in liquidazione is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Case C-278/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 4 June 2012 — A. Adil; other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Schengen Agreement, border control, illegal migration, interpretation of the law








C_2012287EN.01001701.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 4 June 2012 — A. Adil; other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel
(Case C-278/12)
2012/C 287/30
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A. Adil

Other party: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code (1) be interpreted in such a way as to preclude the exercise of a national power, as conferred in Article 50 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 (Law on Foreign Nationals 2000) and set out in greater detail in Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 (Decree on Foreign Nationals 2000), to carry out checks on persons in areas behind internal borders with a view to establishing whether those persons satisfy the requirements for lawful residence laid down by the Member State concerned?










2.








(a)


Does Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code preclude national checks, such as those referred to in Article 50 of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000, from being carried out on the basis of general information and experience regarding the illegal residence of persons at the place where the check is to be carried out, as referred to in Article 4.17a(2) of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000, or should there be concrete indications, when such checks are carried out, that an individual on whom checks are to be carried out is illegally resident in the Member State concerned?










(b)


Does Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code preclude such a check from being carried out with a view to obtaining the general information and experience-based data regarding illegal residence referred to in (a) above, if this occurs to a limited extent?














3.


Must Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code be interpreted in such a way that the restriction of the power to carry out checks in such a way as that described in a statutory rule such as Article 4.17a of the Vreemdelingenbesluit 2000 constitutes a sufficient safeguard for the purpose of ensuring that a check cannot in fact have the effect of a border check prohibited by Article 21 of the Schengen Borders Code?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1).
Commission Regulation (EU) No 478/2012 of 4 June 2012 establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Portugal, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag








L_2012147EN.01000201.xml










7.6.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 147/2








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 478/2012
of 4 June 2012
         
establishing a prohibition of fishing for megrims in VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 by vessels flying the flag of Portugal


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) No 43/2012 of 17 January 2012 fixing for 2012 the fishing opportunities available to EU vessels for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks which are not subject to international negotiations or agreements (2), lays down quotas for 2012.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2012.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to the Member State referred to in the Annex to this Regulation for the stock referred to therein for 2012 shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein shall be prohibited from the date set out in that Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 June 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Lowri EVANS
            

Director-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 25, 27.1.2012, p. 1.




ANNEX






No


6/T&Q




Member State


Portugal




Stock


LEZ/8C3411




Species


Megrims (Lepidorhombus spp.)




Zone


VIIIc, IX and X; EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1




Date


13.5.2012
Case T-245/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (horizontal combination of green colours)
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wind energy








C_2012243EN.01002402.xml










11.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/24





Action brought on 4 June 2012 — Gamesa Eólica v OHIM — Enercon (horizontal combination of green colours)
(Case T-245/12)
2012/C 243/43
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany)

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 260/2011-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a horizontal combination of green colours, for goods in class 7 — Community trade mark registration No 2346542

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: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity based its request on Article 52(1)(a) and on Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark invalid

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

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 62 of the Community trade mark Regulation; and










—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-279/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water
Date: 2012-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil service, dissemination of information, environmental policy, interpretation of the law








C_2012250EN.01000903.xml










18.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 250/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 4 June 2012 — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water
(Case C-279/12)
2012/C 250/17
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Fish Legal, Emily Shirley

Defendants: The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water

Questions referred


Article 2.2(b) of Directive 2003/4/EC
 (1)







1.


In considering whether a natural or legal person is one ‘performing public administrative functions under national law’, is the applicable law and analysis purely a national one?










2.


If it is not, what EU law criteria may or may not be used to determine whether:






(i)


the function in question is in substance a 'public administrative one;










(ii)


national law has in substance vested such function in that person?









Article 2.2(c) of Directive 2003/4/EC







3.


What is meant by a person being 'under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2.2(a) or (b)? In particular, what is the nature, form and degree of control required and what criteria may or may not be used to identify such control?










4.


Is an “emanation of the State” (under paragraph 20 of the judgment in Foster v British Gas plc (Case C-188189) necessarily a person caught by Article 2.2(c)?





Article 2.2(b) and (c)







5.


Where a person falls within either provision in respect of some of its functions, responsibilities or services, are its obligations to provide environmental information confined to the information relevant to those functions, responsibilities or services or do they extend to all environmental information held for any purpose?






(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC
OJ L 41, p. 26