do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-450/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 8 October 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, heating, tube








C_2012389EN.01000502.xml










15.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/5





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), lodged on 8 October 2012 — HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
(Case C-450/12)
2012/C 389/08
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HARK GmbH & Co. KG Kamin- und Kachelofenbau

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg

Questions referred







1.


Is heading 7321 of the Combined Nomenclature set out 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, (1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the stove pipe sets described in greater detail in the grounds can be regarded as parts of stoves, ranges, grates, and cookers?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the stove pipe sets then be classified under heading 7307?






(1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1.
Case T-445/12: Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012379EN.01002601.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/26





Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)
(Case T-445/12)
2012/C 379/45
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co (Asperg, Germany)

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 6 August 2012 in Case R 1675/2011-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Koscher + Würtz GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: International registration with protection in respect of the European Union of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘KW SURGICAL ELEMENTS’ for goods in Class 10 — International registration with protection in respect of the European Union No W 968 722

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Ka We’ for goods in Class 10

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and protection denied in respect of the trade mark registration

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 921/2012 of 8 October 2012 amending for the 179th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic sanctions, international sanctions, terrorism








L_2012274EN.01002001.xml










9.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 274/20








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 921/2012
of 8 October 2012
         
amending for the 179th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al Qaida network


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network, (1) and in particular Article 7(1)(a) and 7a(5) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.












(2)


On 27 September 2012 the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to remove one natural person from its list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply after considering the de-listing request submitted by this person and the Comprehensive Report of the Ombudsperson established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009).












(3)


Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 should therefore be updated accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 October 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Head of the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments






(1)  
            OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.




ANNEX
Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:
The following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ is deleted:


            ‘Abdullahi Hussein Kahie. Address: 26 Urtegata Street, Oslo 0187 Norway. Date of birth: 22.9.1959. Place of birth: Mogadishu, Somalia. Nationality: Norwegian. Passport No: (a) 26941812 (Norwegian passport issued on 23.11.2008, (b) 27781924 (Norwegian passport issued on 11.5.2010 valid until 11.5.2020. National identification No: 22095919778. Date of designation referred to in Article 2a (4)(b): 9.11.2001.’
Case C-451/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2012 — Josune Esteban García
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contractual liability, electronic commerce, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, territorial jurisdiction








C_2012399EN.01001201.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/12





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca (Spain) lodged on 8 October 2012 — Josune Esteban García
(Case C-451/12)
2012/C 399/20
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Josune Esteban García

Question referred

Do Articles 4, 12, 114 and 169 of the Treaty and Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Directive 93/13 (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the high level of protection of the interests of consumers, as well as to the practical effect of directives and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, allow the Audiencia Provincial, as a national court of appeal, to hear and determine, in spite of the absence of any relevant domestic legal rule, the appeal brought against the decision of the court of first instance assigning to a court of the place where the defendant has its address territorial jurisdiction to hear and determine the action for damages based on the defendant’s alleged failure to fulfil its contractual obligations under a contract concluded over the internet?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)
Judgment of the Court of 8 October 2012 in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11 — Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority (Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, State aid, maritime transport, principle of legal certainty, public service, services of general interest








C_2013029EN.01000801.xml










31.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/8





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 8 October 2012
in Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11
Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority
(Action for annulment of a decision of the EFTA Surveillance Authority — State aid — Maritime transport — Article 61(1) of the EEA — Article 59(2) of the EEA — Services of general economic interest — Public service compensation — Overcompensation — Principle of good administration — Legal certainty — Obligation to state reasons)
2013/C 29/09
In Joined Cases E-10/11 and E-11/11, Hurtigruten ASA and the Kingdom of Norway v EFTA Surveillance Authority — APPLICATION for the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 on the Supplementary Agreement on the Hurtigruten service, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 8 October 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the applications.










2.


Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 925/2012 of 8 October 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pimiento de Fresno-Benavente (PGI))
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, designation of origin, fruit vegetable, product designation








L_2012275EN.01002301.xml










10.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 275/23








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 925/2012
of 8 October 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pimiento de Fresno-Benavente (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pimiento de Fresno-Benavente’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 October 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 27, 1.2.2012, p. 17.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN
Pimiento de Fresno-Benavente (PGI)
Case C-449/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — L.J.A. van Luijk; other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, passport, safety standard








C_2013026EN.01001801.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — L.J.A. van Luijk; other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag
(Case C-449/12)
2013/C 26/31
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: L.J.A. van Luijk

Other party: Burgemeester van Den Haag

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 928/2012 of 8 October 2012 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Phú Quc (PDO))
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Viet Nam, designation of origin, fish product, product designation








L_2012277EN.01000101.xml










11.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 277/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 928/2012
of 8 October 2012
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Phú Quốc (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Vietnam’s application to register the name ‘Phú Quốc’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 8 October 2012.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Dacian CIOLOȘ
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 1, 4.1.2012, p. 12.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.7.   Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom

VIETNAM
Phú Quốc (PDO)
Case T-62/12: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission — Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access — Inadmissibility — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU — Confirmatory measure)
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, consultancy, infringement of EU law








C_2012366EN.01003501.xml










24.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 366/35





Order of the General Court of 8 October 2012 — ClientEarth v Council
(Case T-62/12) (1)

(Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Opinion issued by the legal service of the Council concerning a draft regulation of the Parliament and of the Council related to public access to the documents of the Parliament, of the Council and of the Commission - Confirmation of a refusal to grant full access - Inadmissibility - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Notion of measure open to challenge for the purposes of Article 263 TFEU - Confirmatory measure)
2012/C 366/70
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and C. Fekete, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the Council’s decision of 1 December 2011 confirming the decision to refuse the applicant full access to an opinion issued by the legal service of the Council (Document No 6865/09) concerning a draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden.










3.


ClientEarth is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case C-448/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — M. Roest; other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam
Date: 2012-10-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, passport, safety standard








C_2013026EN.01001701.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/17





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 8 October 2012 — M. Roest; other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam
(Case C-448/12)
2013/C 26/30
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: M. Roest

Other party: Burgemeester van Amsterdam

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), valid in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is to the effect that Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 May 2009 amending Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), is valid, must Article 4(3) of the Regulation, in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 8(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 7(f) of the Privacy Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Article 6(1)(b) of the Privacy Directive, be interpreted to mean that, when the Member States give effect to Regulation No 2252/2004, there should be a statutory guarantee that the biometric data collected and stored pursuant to that Regulation may not be collected, processed and used for any purposes other than the issuing of the document?






(1)  Directive 95/46/EC 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 (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).