do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-378/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Application to register a company made by VALE Építési kft (Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Cross-border conversion — Refusal to add to register)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: head office, interpretation of the law, national law, registration of a company, right of establishment








C_2012287EN.01000301.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/3





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Application to register a company made by VALE Építési kft
(Case C-378/10) (1)

(Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Cross-border conversion - Refusal to add to register)
2012/C 287/04
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Legfelsőbb Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

VALE Építési kft

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 267 EC and 48 EC — Movement of a company governed by the law of a Member State to another Member State, thereby changing the national law applicable — National legislation which refuses to record in the companies register the predecessor in law of a company established in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which enables companies established under national law to convert, but does not allow, in a general manner, companies governed by the law of another Member State to convert to companies governed by national law by incorporating such a company.










2.


Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU are to be interpreted, in the context of cross border company conversions, as meaning that the host Member State is entitled to determine the national law applicable to such operations and thus to apply the provisions of its national law on the conversion of national companies governing the incorporation and functioning of companies, such as the requirements relating to the drawing up of lists of assets and liabilities and property inventories. However, the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, respectively, preclude the host Member State from






—


refusing, in relation to cross border conversions, to record the company which has applied to convert as the ‘predecessor in law’, if such a record is made of the predecessor company in the commercial register for domestic conversions, and










—


refusing to take due account, when examining a company’s application for registration, of documents obtained from the authorities of the Member State of origin.










(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.
Case T-227/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod MEDIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bluepod MEDIA — Earlier Community figurative mark blue spot and earlier international and national word marks BlueSpot — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001902.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/19





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod MEDIA)
(Case T-227/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark bluepod MEDIA - Earlier Community figurative mark blue spot and earlier international and national word marks BlueSpot - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 258/34
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann and T. Boddien, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2011 (Case R 301/2010-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Wall AG and Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Wall AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.
Case C-291/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings 3002 and 3502 — Blood albumin prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses — Processing of the product)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, interpretation of the law, therapeutics








C_2012287EN.01001501.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/15





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV
(Case C-291/11) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff headings 3002 and 3502 - Blood albumin prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses - Processing of the product)
2012/C 287/25
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: TNT Freight Management (Amsterdam) BV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Blood albumin prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic uses — Notion — Blood albumin which has no therapeutic effect but which is essential for, and is used exclusively for, the preparation of products which themselves do have therapeutic or prophylactic effects

Operative part of the judgment

Note 1(g) of Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, read in conjunction with Note 1(b) of Chapter 35 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a blood albumin which does not itself have a therapeutic or prophylactic effect, but which was produced for the preparation of products having a prophylactic or therapeutic effect, which is essential to that preparation, and which, by its nature, may only be used for that purpose, was prepared for therapeutic or prophylactic use within the meaning of that note.


(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Vodafone España SA v Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), and France Telecom España SA v Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11) (Directive 2002/20/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Authorisation — Article 13 — Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: information network, interpretation of the law, telecommunications industry








C_2012287EN.01000802.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/8





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Vodafone España SA v Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), and France Telecom España SA v Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)
(Joined Cases C-55/11, C-57/11 and C-58/11) (1)

(Directive 2002/20/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Authorisation - Article 13 - Fees for rights of use and rights to install facilities)
2012/C 287/13
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Vodafone España SA (C-55/11 and C-57/11), France Telecom España SA (C-58/11)

Defendants: Ayuntamiento de Santa Amalia (C-55/11), Ayuntamiento de Tudela (C-57/11), Ayuntamiento de Torremayor (C-58/11)

Re:

Reference for preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 13 of 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) — Fees for rights of use and the right to install equipment — Municipal public property

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 13 of 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) must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of a fee for the right to install facilities on, over or under public or private property on operating undertakings which, without being proprietors of those facilities, use them to provide mobile telephony services;










2.


Article 13 of Directive 2002/20 has direct effect and therefore it grants individuals the right to rely upon it before the national courts to dispute the application of a decision by the public authority that is incompatible with that article.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.
Case C-181/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements — Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Equal treatment — Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover — Cooperation — Distortion of evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Failure to state reasons)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, competition, domestic market, equal treatment, fine, fixing of prices, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, tobacco








C_2012287EN.01001302.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/13





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) v European Commission
(Case C-181/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements - Spanish market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Fines - Equal treatment - Maximum limit of 10 % of turnover - Cooperation - Distortion of evidence - Manifest error of assessment - Failure to state reasons)
2012/C 287/22
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd, J. Buendía Sierra and Á. Givaja Sanz, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, E. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-33/05 Cetarsa v Commission, by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) final of 20 October 2004, relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC (Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 — Raw Tobacco — Spain), and a cross-appeal by the Commission seeking to have the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant increased

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal and the cross-appeal;










2.


Orders Compañía Española de Tabaco en Rama, SA (Cetarsa) to pay the costs of the appeal;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.






(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.
Case C-384/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Article 63 TFEU — Tax legislation — Payment of dividends — Withholding tax — Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax — Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, corporation tax, legal domicile, tax on profits of self-employment








C_2012366EN.01001902.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/19





Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Belgium) — Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd v Belgische Staat
(Case C-384/11) (1)

(The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Article 63 TFEU - Tax legislation - Payment of dividends - Withholding tax - Prevention or mitigation of a series of charges to tax - Different treatment of resident recipient companies and non-resident recipient companies)
2012/C 366/32
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Intervener: Syral Belgium NV

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 63 TFEU — Restrictions on the free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Tax on dividends — National rules providing for a 10 % withholding tax on dividends distributed by resident companies and on assimilated income — Imputation to corporation tax of the amount withheld possible only for resident companies

Operative part of the order

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which applies withholding tax to dividends distributed by a resident company to resident and non-resident recipient companies which have a holding of less than 10 % in the capital of the distributing company but with a purchase value of at least EUR 1.2 million, while at the same time providing a mechanism for the mitigation of a series of charges to tax only for resident recipient companies. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention, and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital to be neutralised.


(1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.
Case F-22/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Conticchio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Calculation of pension rights — Classification by step — Preliminary plea of illegality — Whether admissible)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, pension scheme








C_2012287EN.01004101.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/41





Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Conticchio v Commission
(Case F-22/11) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Calculation of pension rights - Classification by step - Preliminary plea of illegality - Whether admissible)
2012/C 287/75
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Tortora, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Application by Ms Conticchio for annulment of the decision relating to the grant and payment of her pension rights.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action brought by Ms Conticchio is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.










2.


Each party shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011, p. 31.
Case T-93/12: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (BLUE JEAN GAS)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012273EN.01002306.xml










8.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/23





Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (BLUE JEAN GAS)
(Case T-93/12) (1)

2012/C 273/44
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.
Case C-311/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Distinctive character — Refusal to register)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012287EN.01001502.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/15





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — Smart Technologies ULC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-311/11 P) (1)

(Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Distinctive character - Refusal to register)
2012/C 287/26
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Smart Technologies ULC (represented by: M. Edenborough QC, and T. Elias, barrister)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011Smart Technologies v OHMI (Case T-523/09) by which that court dismissed an application for annulment of the decision R 554/2009-2 of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 29 September 2009, rejecting the appeal against the examiner’s decision refusing to register the word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ in respect of goods in Class 9.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Smart Technologies ULC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-470/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — medi v OHIM (medi) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001701.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/17





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — medi v OHIM (medi)
(Case T-470/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark medi - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
2012/C 258/28
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially S. Schäffner and subsequently G. Schneider, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign medi as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Medi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.
Case C-278/11 P: Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament (Appeal — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Review of the use of allowances — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Justification of expenditure — Recovery of undue payments)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses








C_2012366EN.01001802.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/18





Order of the Court of 12 July 2012 — Densmore Ronald Dover v European Parliament
(Case C-278/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Review of the use of allowances - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Justification of expenditure - Recovery of undue payments)
2012/C 366/30
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Densmore Ronald Dover (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister and R. Collard, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-149/09 Dover v European Parliament by which the General Court annulled in part the Decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 to recover certain sums unduly paid to the appellant by way of expenses and parliamentary allowances

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Mr Densmore Ronald Dover is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.
Case T-334/10: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Twist System — Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXTER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2012-07-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012258EN.01001801.xml










25.8.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 258/18





Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Leifheit v OHIM — Vermop Salmon (Twist System)
(Case T-334/10) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark Twist System - Earlier Community word marks TWIX and TWIXTER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2012/C 258/30
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Vermop Salmon GmbH (Gilching, Germany) (represented by: W. von der Osten-Sacken, O. Sude and M. Ring, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2010 (Joined Cases R 924/2009-1 and R 1013/2009-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Vermop Salmon GmbH and Leifheit AG.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.