do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-372/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, other parties: M. and S.
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, interpretation of the law, personal data








C_2012303EN.01001802.xml










6.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel, other parties: M. and S.
(Case C-372/12)
2012/C 303/32
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel

Respondents: M. and S.

Questions referred







1.


Should the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data be interpreted to mean that there is a right to a copy of documents in which personal data have been processed, or is it sufficient if a full summary, in an intelligible form, of the personal data that have undergone processing in the documents concerned is provided?










2.


Should the words ‘right of access’ in Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) be interpreted to mean that there is a right to a copy of documents in which personal data have been processed, or is it sufficient if there is provision of a full summary, in an intelligible form, of the personal data that have undergone processing in the documents concerned within the meaning of the second indent of Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC …?










3.


Is Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also addressed to the Member States of the European Union in so far as they are implementing European Union law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of that Charter?










4.


Does the consequence that, as a result of the granting of access to ‘minutes’, the reasons why a particular decision is proposed are no longer recorded therein, which is not in the interests of the internal undisturbed exchange of views within the public authority concerned and of orderly decision-making, constitute a legitimate interest of confidentiality within the meaning of Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










5.


Can a legal analysis, as set out in a ‘minute’, be regarded as personal data within the meaning of Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC …?










6.


Does the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, within the meaning of Article 13(1)(g) of Directive 95/46/EC …, also cover the interest in an internal undisturbed exchange of views within the public authority concerned? If the answer to that is in the negative, can that interest then be covered by Article 13(1)(d) or (f) of that directive?






(1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

(2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.
Case T-352/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012331EN.01002601.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/26






Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Grupo Flexi de León v OHIM (FLEXI)
(Case T-352/12)
(2012/C 331/49)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Flexi de León, SA de CV (León, Mexico) (represented by M. Zarobe, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in Case R 1335/2011-2 in relation to Community trade mark application No 9 532 797‘FLEXI’;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘FLEXI’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 532 797

Decision of the Examiner: application rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-371/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2012 — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance company, interpretation of the law, road traffic, third-party insurance, transport accident








C_2012295EN.01002402.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 August 2012 — Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo v Unipol
(Case C-371/12)
2012/C 295/44
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Enrico Petillo, Carlo Petillo

Defendant: Unipol

Question referred

In the light of Directives 72/166/EEC, (1) 84/5/EEC, (2) 90/232/EEC (3) and 2009/103/EC (4) governing compulsory insurance against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles, is it permissible for the domestic legislation of a Member State effectively to provide — by imposing, solely in the case of damage arising from road traffic accidents, a compulsory method for quantifying the damage — a limitation (in terms of quantification) of the liability for non-material damage lying with the persons (insurance companies) obliged under those directives to ensure compulsory insurance for damage caused by the use of vehicles?


(1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

(2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

(3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

(4)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).
Case C-370/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2012 — Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, division of powers, economic policy, general legal principle, infringement of EU law, international convention, interpretation of the law, monetary policy, operation of the Institutions








C_2012303EN.01001801.xml










6.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 3 August 2012 — Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General
(Case C-370/12)
2012/C 303/31
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Pringle

Defendant: Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General

Questions referred







1.


Whether European Council Decision 2011/199/EU of 25th March 2011 (1) is valid:






—


Having regard to the use of the simplified revision procedure pursuant to Article 48(6) TEU and, in particular, whether the proposed amendment to Article 136 TFEU involved an increase in the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties;










—


Having regard to the content of the proposed amendment, in particular whether it involves any violation of the Treaties or of the general principles of law of the Union.














2.


Having regard to






—


Articles 2 and 3 TEU and the provisions of Part Three, Title VIII TFEU, and in particular Articles 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, and 127 TFEU;










—


the exclusive competence of the Union in monetary policy as set out in Article 3(1)(c) TFEU and in concluding international agreements falling within the scope of Article 3(2) TFEU;










—


the competence of the Union in coordinating economic policy, in accordance with Article 2(3) TFEU and Part Three, Title VIII TFEU;










—


the powers and functions of Union Institutions pursuant to principles set out in Article l3 TEU;










—


the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU;










—


the general principles of Union law including in particular the general principle of effective judicial protection and the right to an effective remedy as provided under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principle of legal certainty;




is a Member State of the European Union whose currency is the euro entitled to enter into and ratify an international agreement such as the ESM Treaty?










3.


If the European Council Decision is held valid, is the entitlement of a Member State to enter into and ratify an international agreement such as the ESM Treaty subject to the entry into force of that Decision?






(1)  European Council Decision of 25 March 2011 amending Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union with regard to a stability mechanism for Member States whose currency is the euro
OJ L 91, p. 1
Case T-354/12: Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Afepadi and Others v Commission
Date: 2012-08-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, food safety, foodstuff








C_2012295EN.01003001.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/30





Action brought on 3 August 2012 — Afepadi and Others v Commission
(Case T-354/12)
2012/C 295/54
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Preparados alimenticios especiales, dietéticos y plantas medicinales (Afepadi) (Barcelona, Spain), Elaboradores Dietéticos, SA (Spain), Nova Diet, SA (Burgos, Spain), Laboratorios Vendrell, SA (Spain), Ynsadiet, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Velázquez González, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul recitals 11, 14 and 17 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EU) 432/2012 as they are seriously detrimental to the applicants’ interests;










—


in the interest of legal certainty, declare that the rejection of the health claims listed in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council must result from a legislative act;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present action.





Pleas in law and main arguments

On 16 May 2012 the Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 432/2012 establishing a list of permitted health claims made on foods, other than those referring to the reduction of disease risk and to children’s development and health. (1) That regulation implements Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods. (2)

In support of their action, the applicants claim that the principle of legal certainty has been infringed.
In that regard, it claims that, in spite of the work which has been carried out, the Commission’s task laid down in Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 of adopting a Community list of permitted claims has not been fulfilled in its entirety, since not all of the health claims submitted for evaluation by the EFSA were made subject to an authorisation decision. Consequently, a large number of statements remain to be evaluated for the first time or to be evaluated more extensively, including evaluations of botanical substances which the applicants frequently use in their foodstuffs.
In that way, operators in the foodstuff production sector and users of botanical substances know, with certainty, which health claims are based on generally accepted scientific data (the 222 authorised health claims) and which may be used in their products. However, they have not been informed in the same way (by means of a regulation) of the situation as regards claims which are not on the authorised list, that is to say, whether they are pending evaluation or require further evaluation, whether they have been rejected, whether they have been authorised or not, or when and in what time-frame.


(1)  OJ 2012 L 136, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.