do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-325/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, consumer protection, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, periodic penalty payment, personal data, protection of privacy, transmission network, universal service








C_2013108EN.01001905.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/19





Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
(Case C-325/12) (1)

2013/C 108/49
Language of the case: Portuguese
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.
Council Decision 2012/687/CFSP of 6 November 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation, oil industry, trade restriction








L_2012307EN.01008201.xml










7.11.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 307/82








            COUNCIL DECISION 2012/687/CFSP
of 6 November 2012
         
amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and in particular Article 23(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP.












(2)


An additional entity should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The entity listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to section B of Part I of the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 6 November 2012.


For the Council


The President

A. D. MAVROYIANNIS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.




ANNEX

ENTITY REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1

B.   Entities










 


Name


Identifying information


Reasons


Date of listing




1.


National Iranian Oil Company Nederland (a.k.a.: NIOC Netherlands Representation Office)


Blaak 512, 3011 TA and Weena 333, 3013 AL Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Tel +31 (10) 225 0177, +31 (10) 225 0308.
http://www.nioc-intl.com/Offices_Rotterdam.htm.


Subsidiary of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC).


7.11.2012
Case C-494/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, fraud, interpretation of the law, transfer of property








C_2013026EN.01002501.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Dixons Retail Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
(Case C-494/12)
2013/C 26/48
Language of the case: English

Referring court

First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dixons Retail Plc

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 14.1 of Council Directive of 28 November 2006 (2006/112/EU (1)) to be interpreted as applying when the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraud in that the payment provided by the transferee is by means of a card which the transferee knows he has no authority to use?










2.


When the physical transfer of goods is obtained by fraudulent use of a card, is there a ‘transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’ within Article 14.1?










3.


Is Article 73 to be interpreted as applying when payment is obtained by the transferor of goods under an agreement with a third party to make such payment in respect of a card transactions notwithstanding that the transferee of the goods knows that he has no authority to use the card?










4.


When payment is made by a third party pursuant to an agreement between the transferor of the goods an the third party as a consequence of the presentation to the transferor of a card which the transferee of the goods has no authority to use is the payment obtained from the third party ‘in return for the supply’ within Article 73?






(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1
Case C-492/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 November 2012 — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dental medicine, diploma, interpretation of the law, professional qualifications








C_2013026EN.01002403.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 November 2012 — Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins v Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé
(Case C-492/12)
2013/C 26/47
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Conseil national de l’ordre des médecins

Defendant: Ministère des affaires sociales et de la santé

Questions referred







1.


Does the specificity requirement for the profession of dental practitioner, laid down by Article 36 of Directive 2005/36/EC, (1) prevent the creation of a postgraduate university training course leading to a qualification which is common to medical students and dental students?










2.


Must the provisions of the Directive on specialties related to medicine be construed as meaning that disciplines such as those listed in point 3 of this decision (2) may not be included in a dental training course?






(1)  Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22).

(2)  Namely, on the one hand, theoretical training in oral surgery including in particular training in surgery on the periapex and on odontogenic and non-odontogenic cysts of the jaws, pre-prosthetic and implant surgery, the study of benign tumour conditions, salivary conditions and orthodontic-surgical and orthognathic treatment, and on the other, practical training lasting at least three semesters in a specialist dentistry department and three semesters in a specialist maxillofacial department.
Case C-493/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: medicinal product, patent law, pharmaceutical legislation








C_2013009EN.01003301.xml










12.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/33





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 5 November 2012 — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc
(Case C-493/12)
2013/C 9/55
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

Questions referred







(a)


What are the criteria for deciding whether ‘the product is protected by a basic patent in force’ in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC (1) (the ‘Regulation’)?










(b)


Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria?










(c)


In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
OJ L 152, p. 1
Case T-483/12: Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (LOTTE)
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food industry, product designation, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005302.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/53





Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v OHIM — Lotte (LOTTE)
(Case T-483/12)
2013/C 26/107
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lotte Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

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 3 September 2012 in case R 2103/2010-4;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Lotte Co. Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘LOTTE’ and an image of a koala on a tree, holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application 6 158 463

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks containing the word elements ‘KOALA BÄREN’ and ‘KOALA’ and an image of a koala holding a smaller koala, for goods in Class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal granted; decision of the Opposition Division annulled

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-480/12: Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)
Date: 2012-11-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013026EN.01005201.xml










26.1.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/52





Action brought on 5 November 2012 — Coca-Cola v OHIM — Mitico (Master)
(Case T-480/12)
2013/C 26/105
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: The Coca-Cola Company (Atlanta, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Modern Industrial & Trading Investment Co. Ltd (Mitico) (Damascus, Syria)

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 29 August 2012 in case R 2156/2011-2; and










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and pay those of 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 figurative mark ‘Master’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark application No 9091612

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 8792475 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 3021086 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2117828 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; Community trade mark registration No 2107118 of the figurative mark ‘Coca-Cola’; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2428468 of the figurative mark ‘C’

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 Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009