do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-82/12: Order of the General Court of 6 August 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Syria, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, equal treatment, fundamental rights, international sanctions, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2012295EN.01003201.xml










29.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/32





Order of the General Court of 6 August 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
(Case T-82/12) (1)

2012/C 295/56
Language of the case: French
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-375/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble (France) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, interpretation of the law, residence, shareholder, tax relief








C_2012319EN.01000301.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble (France) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Margaretha Bouanich v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme
(Case C-375/12)
2012/C 319/03
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal administratif de Grenoble

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Margaretha Bouanich

Defendant: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Drôme

Questions referred







1.


Do Articles 43, 56 and 58 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 49, 63 and 65 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) preclude legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a resident of a Member State of the European Union who is a shareholder of a company established in another Member State of the European Union receives dividends taxed in the two Member States and the double taxation is regulated by the imputation in the Member State of residence of a tax credit for the same amount as the tax paid in the State of the distributing company, the tax capping mechanism of up to 60 % or 50 % of income received during a year does not take into account, or takes only partially into account, the tax paid in the other State;










2.


If that is the case, may such a restriction be justified by the need to maintain the cohesion of the tax system, by a balanced allocation of taxing powers between the Member States, or by any other overriding reason in the public interest?
Case T-361/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012319EN.01001102.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/11





Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Premiere Polish v OHIM — Donau Kanol (ECOFORCE)
(Case T-361/12)
2012/C 319/21
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Premiere Polish Co., Ltd (Cheltenham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Jones and M. Carter, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donau Kanol GmbH & Co KG (Ried im Traunkreis, Austria)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in case R 851/2011-4;










—


Allow the applicant’s Community trade mark application No 8777005 in its entirety or in the alternative, the proceedings be remitted to the Board of Appeal; and










—


Order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECOFORCE’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8777005

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 7243173 of the figurative mark ‘ECO FORTE’ for goods in classes 1, 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-353/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012311EN.01001201.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/12





Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Aleris v OHIM — Carefusion 303 (ALARIS)
(Case T-353/12)
2012/C 311/15
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Aleris Holding AB (Stockolm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Kylhammar and K. Westerberg, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carefusion 303, Inc. (San Diego, United States)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 11 May 2012 (R 334/2011-5), as well as Section 2 of the Cancellation decision, and render a decision in accordance with the applicant’s request; and










—


Order the respondent as the losing party to bear all costs and fees incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Board of Appeal and the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘ALARIS’, for goods and services in classes 10, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 571521

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

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark only in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of the fundamental principles that must be applied in revocation proceedings based on non-use. Infringement of Articles 15 and 9 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-376/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, interpretation of the law, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network








C_2012311EN.01000701.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/7





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 August 2012 — Sky Italia Srl v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali
(Case C-376/12)
2012/C 311/08
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sky Italia Srl

Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Commissione di Garanzia per l’Attuazione della Legge sullo Sciopero nei Servizi Pubblici Essenziali

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 T-356/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, infringement of EU law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012311EN.01001202.xml










13.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/12





Action brought on 6 August 2012 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)
(Case T-356/12)
2012/C 311/16
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funcha, Madeira) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ibercosmetica, SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2012 in case R 1033/2011-4;










—


Order the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SÔ:UNIC’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8197972

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: A series of 24 Community, International, UK and Irish registered trade marks consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, for goods in class 3; A series of 17 unregistered signs consisting of the word ‘SO’ combined with other material, used in connection with goods in class 3

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; and










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-377/12: Action brought on 6 August 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Philippines, cooperation agreement (EU), development aid, framework agreement, legal basis








C_2012319EN.01000302.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/3





Action brought on 6 August 2012 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-377/12)
2012/C 319/04
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana, S. Bartelt, F. Erlbacher, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul the Decision of the Council of 14 May 2012 on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part (2012/272/EU) (1) insofar as the Council has added the legal bases relating to transport (Articles 91 and 100 TFEU), readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU) and environment (Article 191(4) TFEU);










—


maintain the effects of the contested decision;










—


order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By way of the present application the Commission seeks the annulment of the Decision of the Council on the signing, on behalf of the Union, of the Framework Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of the Philippines, of the other part of 14 May 2012 (2012/272/EU) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the contested decision’), insofar as the Council has added the legal bases relating to transport (Articles 91 and 100 TFEU), readmission (Article 79(3) TFEU) and environment (Article 191(4) TFEU).
This application is based on a single plea of law, namely that the Council has violated the rules of the Treaties and the case-law of the Court in relation to the choice of the legal basis for the adoption of a Union measure, including a decision on the signature of an international agreement.
The Commission takes the view that the addition of the above mentioned legal bases was unnecessary and illegal. Indeed, the provisions of the PCA which have triggered the addition of these legal bases by the Council relate to cooperation on specific policy matters which form an integral part of the development cooperation policy of the EU and do not impose extensive obligations distinct from those of development cooperation. Therefore, all these provisions of the PCA are covered by Article 209 TFEU.


(1)  OJ L 134, p. 3
Case C-194/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias
Date: 2012-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Spain, hospitalisation, incapacity for work, paid leave








C_2012366EN.01002703.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/27





Order of the President of the Court of 6 August 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Susana Natividad Martínez Álvarez v Consejería de la Presidencia, Justicia e Igualdad del Principado de Asturias
(Case C-194/11) (1)

2012/C 366/50
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.