do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-104/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 4 March 2013 — AS ‘Olainfarm’ v Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, copyright, drug surveillance, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, right to justice








C_2013123EN.01001301.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 4 March 2013 — AS ‘Olainfarm’ v Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra
(Case C-104/13)
2013/C 123/20
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AS ‘Olainfarm’

Defendants: Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija, Zāļu valsts aģentūra

Intervener: AS ‘Grindeks’

Questions referred







1.


On a proper construction of Article 10 or of any other provision of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, has the manufacturer of a reference medicinal product an individual right to bring an action challenging the decision of a competent authority by which a generic medicinal product of another manufacturer of medicinal products was registered, using as the reference medicinal product the product registered by the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product? In other words, does that Directive confer on the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product the right to a judicial remedy, the object of which is to determine whether the manufacturer of the generic medicinal product made lawful, well-founded reference to the product registered by the manufacturer of the reference medicinal product, relying on Article 10 of the Directive?










2.


If the reply to the first question should be affirmative, on a proper construction of Articles 10 and 10a of the Directive, may a medicinal product registered in accordance with Article 10a of the Directive as a medicinal product in well-established medicinal use be used as a reference medicinal product for the purpose of Article 10(2)(a)?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.
Case T-127/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, camping, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013129EN.01002501.xml










4.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/25





Action brought on 4 March 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland (PRO OUTDOOR)
(Case T-127/13)
2013/C 129/49
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 11 December 2012 in Case R 1900/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the action brought by the applicant, it confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community word mark No 4 782 215‘PRO OUTDOOR’;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PRO OUTDOOR’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 18, 22, 24, 25, 28 and 35

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Praktiker Deutschland GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word elements ‘OUTDOOR GARDEN BARBECUE CAMPING’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 18, 22, 24, 25 and 28

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:







—


Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 207/2009, and Rules 48 and 49 of Regulation No 2868/95










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case T-118/13: Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, household electrical appliance








C_2013141EN.01002201.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/22





Action brought on 20 February 2013 — Whirlpool Europe v Commission
(Case T-118/13)
2013/C 141/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Whirlpool Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: F. Wijckmans and H. Burez, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Decision of the Commission of 25 July 2012 relating to the State aid of France to the benefit of the FagorBrandt company [SA.23839 no C44/2007];










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 25 July 2012 relating to State aid of France to the benefit of the FagorBrandt company [SA.23839 no C44/2007].
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. The applicant submits that the holding of the decision is incorrect as a matter of law on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the abovementioned guidelines is not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met. The arguments advanced to underscore this plea relate to the failure to comply with (i) the duty to assess one or more of the conditions of the aforementioned guidelines as at the date of the decision; (ii) the ‘one time, last time’ condition; (iii) the condition that restructuring aid may not serve to keep firms artificially alive; (iv) the conditions as to the assessment of previous unlawful aid; (v) the condition that the beneficiary of the aid must be a firm in difficulty; (vi) the condition that the beneficiary of the aid should not be a newly created firm; (vii) the condition that the restructuring plan must restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary; (viii) the condition of imposing compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions resulting from the restructuring aid; and (ix) the condition that the aid must be limited to the minimum and that a real contribution (free of aid) must be made by the business group.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU on several items. The applicant in particular submits that the decision fails to state adequate reasons with respect to (i) the condition of imposing compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions resulting from the restructuring aid, and (ii) the repayment obligation of previous unlawful aid.
Case C-106/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, building regulations, interpretation of the law, municipality, ownership, urban construction








C_2013141EN.01001501.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/15





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale v Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza
(Case C-106/13)
2013/C 141/26
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Tivoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Francesco Fierro and Fabiana Marmorale

Defendants: Edoardo Ronchi and Cosimo Scocozza

Question referred

Does the national legislation of the Italian Republic — in particular, Article 33 of Law No 1150/42, which allows the municipalities to regulate the urban development of land and/or building works on that land within the boundaries of each municipality in accordance with the general principles laid down in that Law, in Article 1 of Law No 10/77 and in various laws adopted by the individual regions, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 380 of 6 June 2001‘consolidating the legislative and regulatory provisions on building’ and with lower-ranking local rules (general land use plans, implementing rules) and Article 46 of Presidential Decree No 380/2001, which renders sales transactions void in the event of alterations to immovable property being made without proper authorisation — constitute a disproportionate and unreasonable encroachment on the right to property, albeit regulated by law, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 6 [TEU] and Articles 17 and 52(3) of the [Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union]?
Case T-133/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Pro-Aqua International/OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY)
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013123EN.01002201.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/22





Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Pro-Aqua International/OHIM — Rexair (WET DUST CAN’T FLY)
(Case T-133/13)
2013/C 123/37
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Pro-Aqua International GmbH (Ansbach, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rexair LLC (Troy, United States)

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) (OHIM) of 17 December 2012 (in case R 211/2012-2);










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and the Board of Appeal of OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘WET DUST CAN’T FLY’ for products and services of classes 3, 7 and 37 (Community trade mark registration No 6 668 073)

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

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case T-129/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Romania, State aid, accession to the European Union, control of State aid, hydroelectric development








C_2013141EN.01002202.xml










18.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 141/22





Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Alpiq RomIndustries and Alpiq RomEnergie v Commission
(Case T-129/13)
2013/C 141/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Alpiq RomIndustries Srl (Bucharest, Romania) and Alpiq RomEnergie Srl (Bucharest) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 2542 final of 25 April 2012 (SA.33451; 2012/C; ex 2012/NN) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants submit, in essence, that the Commission lacks competence. In the applicants’ view, the alleged aid does not fall within the scope ratione temporis of Articles 107 TFEU and 108 TFEU. Under Annex V to Romania’s Act of Accession, the Commission is competent to examine aid measures put into effect prior to the date of Romania’s accession only if those measures are still applicable after that date. The applicants submit in that context, inter alia, that Hidroelectrica’s liabilities vis-à-vis the alleged recipients were already established so clearly in the power supply contracts concluded prior to accession that a subsequent expansion of Hidroelectrica’s supply obligation that might have resulted in additional advantages had to be ruled out.
Case T-132/13: Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: impunity, member of the Court of Auditors (EU), misuse of a right, psychological harassment








C_2013123EN.01002102.xml










27.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/21





Action brought on 4 March 2013 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
(Case T-132/13)
2013/C 123/36
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Sonja Deweerdt (Rulles, Belgium); Didier Lebrun (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); and Margot Lietz (Mensdorf, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


Declare Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors unlawful inasmuch as it has the effect of ensuring the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment;










—


Annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of 13 December 2012 not to refer the matter to the Court of Justice in order to request it to examine whether Ms S., at that time a Member of the Court of Auditors, no longer fulfilled the requisite conditions or met the obligations arising from her office and, should her term of office have already ended, to deprive her of her right to a pension;










—


Order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


The first plea in law alleges that Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Auditors is unlawful inasmuch as it ensures the impunity of a Member who is guilty of harassment.










2.


The second plea in law relates to the fact that the contested decision is marred by inconsistency, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors expressly acknowledged Ms S.’s shortcomings whilst refusing to refer the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice.










3.


The third plea in law alleges that there is no relevant reasoning to enable the applicants to assess the merits of the contested decision.










4.


The fourth plea in law alleges infringement of the principle of legitimate expectations and an abuse of rights, inasmuch as the Court of Auditors examined the expediency of referring the matter of Ms S. to the Court of Justice only a year and a day after the external investigator had submitted the report.
Case C-105/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2013 — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, aid to agriculture, single payment scheme, utilised agricultural area








C_2013147EN.01001102.xml










25.5.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 147/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2013 — P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
(Case C-105/13)
2013/C 147/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: P.J. Vonk Noordegraaf

Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Question referred

Can it be said to constitute a correct application of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, (1) with particular reference to Articles 34, 36 and 137, if a farmer with payment entitlements acquired on the basis of non-area-related production, allocated to the area in his possession, does not have a significant proportion of those entitlements paid out to him despite the fact that he declared the eligible area of the hectares which remained unchanged in his possession in good faith in accordance with the measuring method used by the Member State at the time of the activation of the payment entitlements under Article 34 of Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, but subsequently rejected by the Commission, for the sole reason that the eligible area determined for purposes of the payment turns out to be smaller as the result of a changed measuring method?


(1)  Council Regulation of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ 2009 L 30, p. 16).
Case T-66/13: Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Representation of a bottle)
Date: 2013-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bottling, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013108EN.01003001.xml










13.4.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 108/30





Action brought on 4 February 2013 — Langguth Erben v OHIM (Representation of a bottle)
(Case T-66/13)
2013/C 108/75
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Franz Wilhelm Langguth Erben GmbH & Co. KG (Traben-Trarbach, Germany) (represented by R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims 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 22 November 2012 in Case R 129/2012-1;










—


Order OHIM to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark, representing a bottle, for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 10 005 866

Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(2), 75, 76(1) and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009