do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-28/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Customs warehousing procedure — Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation — Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs formalities, customs warehouse, import (EU)








C_2012355EN.01000402.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Eurogate Distribution GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
(Case C-28/11) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Customs warehousing procedure - Customs debt incurred through non-fulfilment of an obligation - Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse)
2012/C 355/05
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eurogate Distribution GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Delayed entry in stock records of information concerning the removal of goods from a customs warehouse — Whether arising of the customs debt admissible as the penalty for that failure

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of non-Community goods, non-fulfilment of the obligation to enter the removal of the goods from the customs warehouse in the appropriate stock records, at the latest when the goods leave the customs warehouse, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of those goods, even if they have been re-exported.


(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.
Case T-657/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter notifying the applicant of the Commission’s intention to recover the adjusted sums pursuant to a research financing contract — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, Framework Programme for Research and Development, reimbursement of aid, research








C_2012319EN.01001002.xml










20.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/10





Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
(Case T-657/11) (1)

(Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter notifying the applicant of the Commission’s intention to recover the adjusted sums pursuant to a research financing contract - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)
2012/C 319/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and F. Moro, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 19 October 2011 notifying the applicant of the issuing of a debit note for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 97 106,72, corresponding to the amount of the adjusted sums for contract No 034984 (Mosaica), following the conclusions of the financial audit concerning, inter alia, that contract, concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002 — 2006)

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
Case T -410/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Vitaminaqua Ltd v OHIM
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012355EN.01003401.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/34





Action brought on 6 September 2012 — Vitaminaqua Ltd v OHIM
(Case T -410/12)
2012/C 355/71
Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Vitaminaqua Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Krajnyák, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States of America)

Form of order sought







—


Amend the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM rejecting application No 8338592 for registration of the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ (Case R 997/2011-1) and order the registration of the trade mark in accordance with the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM, thereby conferring protection as a trade mark on the sign;










—


Order the defendant or the other party to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vitaminaqua Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘vitaminaqua’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 8 338 592).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Energy Brands, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: inter alia the national word mark ‘VITAMINWATER’ for goods in Classes 5, 30 and 32.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: decision of the Opposition Division set aside and application for registration as a Community trade mark rejected.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).
Case C-487/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) — Relief from import duties on personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Motor vehicle imported into the European Union — Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner)
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exemption from customs duties, household article, import (EU), interpretation of the law, motor car, personal effects








C_2012331EN.01001102.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/11






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-487/11) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) - Relief from import duties on personal property - The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ - Motor vehicle imported into the European Union - Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner)
(2012/C 331/17)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā rajona tiesa Rīgas — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) — Relief from import duty in respect of personal property — Concept of a household — Car used for the needs of a household in a third country — Car imported by its owner, essentially resident in the third country, into a Member State of the European Union for use free of charge by a member of the owner’s family who has moved his residence to that Member State and who formed part of the same household as the owner before the vehicle was imported

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that a private motor vehicle imported from a third country into the customs territory of the European Union may be imported free of import duties provided that the importer has actually transferred his normal place of residence to the customs territory of the European Union, which is a matter for the national court to determine. A motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of that importer’s family, that is by a person living under the same roof as the importer or mainly dependent on him, a matter for the national court to determine, is to be regarded as being intended for meeting the needs of the importer’s household, and that use does not result in loss of entitlement to the relief in question.


(1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.
Case F-93/12: Action brought on 6 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: indemnification, professional career, servant (EU), social-security contribution, unemployment insurance, work contract








C_2012343EN.01002301.xml










10.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/23





Action brought on 6 September 2012 — ZZ v Commission
(Case F-93/12)
2012/C 343/39
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


Annul the decision of the Director of the OIL of 1 December 2011 not to renew the applicant’s appointment, which therefore ended on 15 January 2012;










—


Annul in so far as necessary the decision confirming that decision stemming from the Director’s letter of 6 February 2012;










—


Order the Commission to pay to him, as compensation for the damage to his career as from 15 January to 30 June 2012, a sum corresponding to the difference between the net remuneration which would have been payable to him at the OIL and the net unemployment benefit which he received, provisionally assessed at EUR 11 309, and to pay on his behalf to the Community pension scheme the contributions corresponding to the remuneration which he should have received;










—


Order the applicant’s appointment at the OIL to be renewed for an indefinite period, with effect from the date on which his present appointment comes to an end;










—


In the alternative, order the Commission to pay to him, as compensation for the damage to his career which he would otherwise suffer as from that date, the difference between the remuneration and the pension rights which he would have acquired if his appointment at the OIL had been renewed for an indefinite period and the remuneration or income which serves as a substitute for it and the pension which he might otherwise have received;










—


Order the Commission to pay to him a sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage which resulted from the fact that his appointment at the OIL was not renewed;










—


Order the Commission to pay to him a sum of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the non-material damage caused him by the unlawful nature of his evaluation report for 2010;










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Case C-409/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2012 — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consumer protection, designation of origin, interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012399EN.01000901.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat (Austria) lodged on 6 September 2012 — Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH v Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH
(Case C-409/12)
2012/C 399/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Backaldrin Österreich The Kornspitz Company GmbH

Defendant: Pfahnl Backmittel GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Has a trade mark become ‘the common name. for a product or service’ within the meaning of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) where






(a)


although traders know that the mark constitutes an indication of origin they do not generally disclose this to end consumers, and










(b)


(inter alia) on those grounds, end consumers no longer understand the trade mark as an indication of origin but as the common name for goods or services, in respect of which the trade mark is registered?














2.


Can the conduct of a proprietor be regarded as ‘inactivity’ for the purposes of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC simply if the proprietor of the trade mark remains inactive notwithstanding the fact that traders do not inform customers that the name is a registered trade mark?










3.


If, as a consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, a trade mark has become a common name for end consumers, but not in the trade, is that trade mark liable to be revoked if, and only if, end consumers have to use this name because there are no equivalent alternatives?






(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version), (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6568 — Cisco Systems/NDS Group)  Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, technology, telecommunications industry








C_2012269EN.01000101.xml










6.9.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.6568 — Cisco Systems/NDS Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2012/C 269/01
On 23 July 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6568. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-262/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (Community Customs Code — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 204(1)(a) — Inward processing procedure — System of suspension — Incurrence of a customs debt — Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period)
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs formalities, import (EU)








C_2012355EN.01000401.xml










17.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/4





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
(Case C-262/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Article 204(1)(a) - Inward processing procedure - System of suspension - Incurrence of a customs debt - Non-fulfilment of an obligation to supply the bill of discharge within the prescribed period)
2012/C 355/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Döhler Neuenkirchen GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of Article 859(9) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 (OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1) — Failure to fulfil the obligation to supply, within the prescribed time-limit, the bill of discharge in an inward processing procedure — Whether permissible for a customs debt to be incurred in respect of the entire quantity of the goods covered by the inward processing procedure as punishment for that failure

Operative part of the judgment

Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the non-fulfilment of the obligation to submit the bill of discharge to the supervising office within 30 days of the expiry of the period for discharging the relevant procedure laid down in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 521(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/2007 of 28 February 2007, gives rise to a customs debt in respect of the entire quantity of the imported goods covered by the bill of discharge, including those re-exported outside the territory of the European Union, where the conditions set out in Article 859(9) of Regulation No 2454/93 are not considered to be fulfilled.


(1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.
Case C-327/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ — Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’ )
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, textile industry, trade-mark law








C_2012331EN.01001001.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/10






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 September 2012 — United States Polo Association v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-327/11 P) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ - Opposition by the holder of the earlier word mark ‘POLO-POLO’)
(2012/C 331/15)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: United States Polo Association (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 13 April 2011 in Case T-228/09 United States Polo Association v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘U.S. POLO ASSN.’ for goods in Classes 9, 20, 21, 24 and 27 against the decision R 886/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 20 March 2009 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division partly refusing registration of that mark in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the Community and national word marks ‘POLO-POLO’ for goods in Classes 24, 35 and 39 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders United States Polo Association to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.
Case T-222/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-09-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Zimbabwe, common foreign and security policy, economic sanctions, international sanctions








C_2012331EN.01002402.xml










27.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/24






Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Rautenbach v Council and Commission
(Case T-222/11) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted having regard to the situation in Zimbabwe - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
(2012/C 331/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Muller Conrad Rautenbach (Harare, Zimbabwe) (represented by: S. Smith QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and W. Osmond, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and J. Herrmann, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by E. Paasivirta, M. Konstantinidis and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Re:

ACTION for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP of 15 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 42, p. 6), and of Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011 of 23 February 2011 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2011 L 49, p. 23), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on this action.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by Muller Conrad Rautenbach.










3.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.