do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-636/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern (Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 — Consumer protection — Food safety — Public information — Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)
Date: 2013-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, consumer protection, food safety, interpretation of the law, marketing








C_2013156EN.01001002.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/10





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Karl Berger v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-636/11) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 - Consumer protection - Food safety - Public information - Placing on the market of food unfit for human consumption, but not constituting a health risk)
2013/C 156/15
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Karl Berger

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht München I — Interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p. 1) — Scope ratione temporis — Rules of national law under which the public may be informed in cases where a foodstuff which is unfit for consumption and nauseating in appearance, but which does not constitute a specific risk to health, is placed on the market

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation allowing information to be issued to the public mentioning the name of a food and the name or trade name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor, in a case where that food, though not injurious to health, is unfit for human consumption. The second subparagraph of Article 17(2) of that regulation must be interpreted as allowing, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, national authorities to issue such information to the public in accordance with the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules.


(1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.
Case T-467/12: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic component, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2013156EN.01004302.xml










1.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 156/43





Order of the General Court of 11 April 2013 — Tridium v OHIM — q-bus Mediatektur (SEDONA FRAMEWORK)
(Case T-467/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 156/81
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tridium, Inc. (Richmond, Virginia, United States) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: q-bus Mediatektur GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M.-T. Schott, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2012 (Case R 1943/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between q-bus Mediatektur GmbH and Tridium, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no further need to adjudicate in the action.










2.


The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.






(1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.