do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-470/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005101.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/51





Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
(Case T-470/12)
2013/C 26/103
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, Saint-Martin)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action to be admissible;










—


annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 on Case R 11419/2011-1;










—


order OHIM 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: BEAUTY GARDEN for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 456 134

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grand Hotel Primavera SA

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEAUTY GARDEN’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part and revised by the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 76(1) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009










—


Infringement of the general principle that reasons must be given in OHIM decisions and that the adversarial nature of proceedings must be observed.
Case F-122/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification, termination of employment








C_2013026EN.01007201.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/72





Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-122/12)
2013/C 26/147
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Lecuyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the Council dismissing the applicant and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision taken by the Council dismissing the applicant and, so far as necessary, annul the rejection of his complaint against that decision;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 160 181,85 provisionally as compensation for the material damage suffered;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 25 000 provisionally as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.
Case F-124/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: contract, legal expenses, servant (EU)








C_2013026EN.01007202.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/72





Action brought on 22 October 2012 — ZZ v EMCDDA
(Case F-124/12)
2013/C 26/148
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

The annulment of the decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the AACC’s decision not to renew the temporary agent contract of the applicant, under Article 2(a) of the CEOS;










—


if necessary, annul the reply rejecting his claim seeking renewal of his contract;










—


order the EMCDDA to pay the costs.
Case C-473/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium), lodged on 22 October 2012 — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, equal treatment, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, personal data, selective dissemination of information








C_2013026EN.01002001.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium), lodged on 22 October 2012 — Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI) v Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte
(Case C-473/12)
2013/C 26/36
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Institut professionnel des agents immobiliers (IPI)

Defendants: Geoffrey Englebert, Immo 9 SPRL, Grégory Francotte

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 13(1)(g), in fine, of 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 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it leaves the Member States free to choose whether or not to provide for an exception to the immediate obligation to inform set out in Article 11(1) if this is necessary in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others, or are the Member States subject to restrictions in this matter?










2.


Do the professional activities of private detectives, governed by national law and exercised in the service of authorities authorised to report to the judicial authorities any infringement of the provisions protecting a professional title and organising a profession, come, depending on the circumstances, within the exception referred to in Article 13(1)(d) and (g), in fine, of Directive 95/46?










3.


In the event of a negative reply to Question 2, is Article 13(1)(d) and (g), in fine, of Directive 95/46 compatible with Article 6(3) of the Treaty on European Union, more specifically with the principle of equality and non-discrimination?






(1)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.
2012/656/EU: Council Decision of 22 October 2012 establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organisation on the accession of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the WTO
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Laos, World Trade Organisation, enlargement of an international organisation








L_2012294EN.01000701.xml










24.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 294/7








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 22 October 2012
         
establishing the position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organisation on the accession of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the WTO
(2012/656/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 91, Articles 100(2) and 207(4), in conjunction with Article 218(9) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


On 16 July 1997 the Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) applied for accession to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO), pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement.












(2)


A Working Party on the accession of Lao PDR was established on 19 February 1998 in order to reach agreement on terms of accession acceptable to Lao PDR and all WTO Members.












(3)


The Commission, on behalf of the Union, has negotiated a comprehensive series of market opening commitments on the part of Lao PDR which satisfy the Union’s requests and are in line with the development level of Lao PDR.












(4)


These commitments are now embodied in the Protocol of Accession of Lao PDR to the WTO.












(5)


Accession to the WTO is expected to make a positive and lasting contribution to the process of economic reform and sustainable development in Lao PDR.












(6)


The Protocol of Accession should therefore be approved.












(7)


Article XII of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that the terms of accession are to be agreed between the acceding Member and the WTO, and that the WTO Ministerial Conference approves the terms of accession on the WTO side. Article IV.2 of the Agreement establishing the WTO provides that in the intervals between meetings of the Ministerial Conference, its functions shall be conducted by the General Council.












(8)


Accordingly, it is necessary to establish the position to be taken by the Union within the General Council of the WTO on the accession of Lao PDR to the WTO,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The position to be taken by the European Union within the General Council of the World Trade Organisation on the accession of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to the WTO is to approve the accession.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 22 October 2012.


For the Council


The President

S. ALETRARIS
Case C-469/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, interpretation of the law, provision of services, storage








C_2013026EN.01001903.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH
(Case C-469/12)
2013/C 26/35
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH

Defendant: Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

Question referred

Is a contract for the storage of goods a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.
Case C-252/11: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa as (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, court of arbitration, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract








C_2013101EN.01000201.xml










6.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 101/2





Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 October 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Erika Šujetová v Rapid life životná poisťovňa as
(Case C-252/11) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 101/02
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd v Prešove

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Erika Šujetová

Defendant: Rapid life životná poisťovňa as

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) — Provision of national law under which exclusive jurisdiction in relation to an application for annulment of an arbitral award is attributed to the court in whose area of jurisdiction the arbitration proceedings took place — Provision of national law under which that court is under an obligation, upon annulling an arbitral award, to continue the main proceedings without re-examining its territorial jurisdiction — Unfair arbitration agreement or arbitration clause

Operative part of the order

It is not necessary to give a ruling on the request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia), by decision of 7 April 2011 in Case C-252/11.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case C-474/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, arms trade, business management, firearms and munitions, firm governed by commercial law, interpretation of the law, nationality of legal persons








C_2013026EN.01002002.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/20





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Schiebel Aircraft GmbH v Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend
(Case C-474/12)
2013/C 26/37
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Schiebel Aircraft GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister für Wirtschaft, Familie und Jugend

Question referred

Does Union law, and in particular Articles 18, 45 and 49, in conjunction with Article 346(1)(b) TFEU, preclude a national provision such as the rule applicable in the main proceedings, whereby the members of the statutorily appointed bodies or shareholders of commercial undertakings authorised to manage and represent companies wishing to carry on the business of trading in military arms and munitions and the brokering of the sale and purchase of military arms and munitions, must possess Austrian nationality, the possession of the nationality of another Member State of the EEA not being sufficient?
2012/657/EU: Council Decision of 22 October 2012 appointing an Austrian member and an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Austria, European Committee of the Regions, appointment of members








L_2012294EN.01000801.xml










24.10.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 294/8








            COUNCIL DECISION
         
of 22 October 2012
         
appointing an Austrian member and an Austrian alternate member of the Committee of the Regions
(2012/657/EU)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Austrian Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 22 December 2009 and on 18 January 2010, the Council adopted Decisions 2009/1014/EU (1) and 2010/29/EU (2) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2010 to 25 January 2015.












(2)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Markus LINHART.












(3)


An alternate member’s seat will become vacant following the appointment of Mr Hannes WENINGER as member of the Committee of the Regions,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2015:






(a)


as member:






—


Mr Hannes WENINGER, Geschäftsführender Gemeinderat und Abgeordneter zum Nationalrat;




and










(b)


as alternate member:






—


Mr Markus LINHART, Bürgermeister.










Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 22 October 2012.


For the Council


The President

S. ALETRARIS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 348, 29.12.2009, p. 22.

(2)  
            OJ L 12, 19.1.2010, p. 11.
Case C-150/12: Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Eva-Marie Brännström, Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, interpretation of the law, traveller








C_2013009EN.01003403.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/34





Order of the President of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Eva-Marie Brännström, Rune Brännström v Ryanair Holdings plc
(Case C-150/12) (1)

2013/C 9/59
Language of the case: Swedish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.
Case C-472/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Panasonic Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, audiovisual equipment, interpretation of the law, screen








C_2012399EN.01001501.xml










22.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/15





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 22 October 2012 — Panasonic Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Dogane
(Case C-472/12)
2012/C 399/25
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Panasonic Italia SpA

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane

Questions referred







1.


Primarily — was it necessary, before the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 754/2004, (1) to classify under heading 8471, or under heading 8528, a plasma colour monitor with a diagonal measurement of the screen of 106,6 centimetres, equipped with two loudspeakers and a remote control, and with an input device designed for the insertion of a video card (very inexpensive and easy to find and insert) which was not imported with the screen, but which, once inserted, meant that the monitor was capable of receiving composite AV video signals and could be connected, not only to automatic data-processing machines, but also to recording and reproducing apparatus, DVD players, video cameras and satellite receivers?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, the Court of Justice is asked to assess and determine whether Regulation No 754/2004 actually requires a monitor of that type to be classified under heading 8528;










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is affirmative, the Court is asked whether or not the provisions laid down in that regard by Regulation No 754/2004 have to be regarded as interpretative and, as such, as having retroactive effect save where earlier specific provisions to the contrary apply.






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32).
Case C-317/11: Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, holiday, interpretation of the law








C_2013009EN.01003401.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/34





Order of the President of the Grand Chamber of the Court of 22 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG
(Case C-317/11) (1)

2013/C 9/57
Language of the case: German
The President of the Grand Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.
Case T-463/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)
Date: 2012-10-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lawyer, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2012379EN.01003101.xml










8.12.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 379/31





Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)
(Case T-463/12)
2012/C 379/52
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 506/2011-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MB’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 369 771

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Müller-Boré & Partner

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark MBP and the national and Community trade mark, including the word element ‘MB&P’, for services in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009










—


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