do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-362/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, principle of legal certainty, tax rebate








C_2012311EN.01000501.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
(Case C-362/12)
2012/C 311/05
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation

Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred







1.


Where under the law of a Member State a taxpayer can choose between two alternative causes of action in order to claim restitution of taxes levied contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and one of those causes of action benefits from a longer limitation period, is it compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations for that Member State to enact legislation curtailing that longer limitation period without notice and retrospectively to the date of the public announcement of the proposed new legislation?










2.


Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 that, at the moment when the taxpayer issued its claim using the cause of action which benefited from the longer limitation period, the availability of the cause of action under national law had only been recognised (i) recently and (ii) by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later?
Case F-82/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — ZZ v EIB
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, promotion, staff assessment








C_2012319EN.01001804.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/18





Action brought on 30 July 2012 — ZZ v EIB
(Case F-82/12)
2012/C 319/35
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Adjudication Panel’s decision dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the result of the second overall appraisal of his work for 2007.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision adopted on 15 February 2012, in so far as the Adjudication Panel:






—


dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the 2007 staff report drawn up in 2011 following the annulment of that report as drafted in 2008 ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by judgment of 8 March 2011, which determined Case F-59/09;










—


dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the refusal to recommend that he be promoted, following the annulment ordered by the Civil Service Tribunal by that judgment in Case F-59/09;










—


refused to conduct proceedings on the substance and, in reviewing only the issue of lawfulness, denied the applicant the right to obtain a second, effective appraisal of his work;














—


annul the promotion decisions of 29 April 2008 given that, in view of the appraisal made by his superiors, the EIB failed to take the applicant into consideration in the point ‘Promotions from Function E to D’;










—


annul all the related, consequent and previous measures, including the entire staff report for 2007 and the appraisal by the applicant’s superiors in so far as it fails to propose that he be given a mark A or B+ and promotion to Function D and, if appropriate, declare unlawful, and disapply, the guidelines, at least to the extent to which they unlawfully restrict the number of employees who may receive an overall mark of A or B+;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.
Case C-358/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici v Comune di Milano
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative contract, competition, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, right of establishment, social-security contribution








C_2012311EN.01000402.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/4





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2012 — Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici v Comune di Milano
(Case C-358/12)
2012/C 311/04
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Consorzio Stabile Libor Lavori Pubblici

Defendant: Comune di Milano

Question referred

Do the principle of proportionality which arises from the right of establishment and the principles of non-discrimination and protection of competition laid down in Articles 49, 56 and 101 TFEU, and the principle of reasonableness enshrined therein, preclude national legislation which, in relation to contracts both above and below the Community threshold, classifies as serious an infringement relating to contribution obligations which has been definitively established, where the amount thereof exceeds EUR 100,00 and is at the same time greater than 5 % of the difference between the sums owed and those paid in respect of each payment or contribution period, with the consequent obligation on the contracting authority to exclude from the tender process any competitor who has committed such an infringement, without assessing other aspects which objectively demonstrate the competitor’s reliability as a contractual partner?
Case T-337/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrews)
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012287EN.01003801.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/38





Action brought on 30 July 2012 — El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI v OHIM — Wenf International Advisers (Corkscrews)
(Case T-337/12)
2012/C 287/68
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Hogar Perfecto del Siglo XXI, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Ruiz Gallegos and E. Veiga Conde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wenf International Advisers Ltd (Tortola, Virgin Islands)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Appeal R 89/2011-3;










—


order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design for corkscrews — Community design 00083 0831-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Wenf International Advisers Ltd

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National design for bottle openers

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002










—


Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
Case T-343/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lamps)
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012287EN.01003802.xml










22.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/38





Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Grupo T Diffusión v OHIM — ABR Producción Contemporánea (Lamps)
(Case T-343/12)
2012/C 287/69
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo T Diffusión (El Prat de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: A. Lasala Grimalt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 June 2012 in Case R 1622/2010-3 concerning invalidity proceedings in respect of Community design No 000 42 7448-0001 and declare that design to be fully effective and valid, with no order for costs against Grupo T Diffusión, SA in respect of the costs of ABR and OHIM





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design for a lamp — Registered Community Design No 000 42 7448-0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: ABR Producción Contemporánea, SL

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Prior design of a ‘Cypress’ standard lamp

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
Case T-339/12: Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture (Armchairs)
Date: 2012-07-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal furniture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012295EN.01002801.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/28





Action brought on 30 July 2012 — Gandia Blasco v OHIM — Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture (Armchairs)
(Case T-339/12)
2012/C 295/50
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Gandia Blasco, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: I. Sempere Massa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sachi Premium — Outdoor Furniture, Lda (Estarreja, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 25 May 2012 (R 970/2011-3) Declare the contested Community Design No 1512633-0001 invalid; and










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: A design for ‘armchairs, loungers’ — registered Community design No 1512633-0001

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

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant requested the invalidation of the RCD based on Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002; Community design registration No 52113-0001, for ‘armchairs’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 to 9 of Council Regulation No 6/2002