do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-329/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Ferdinand Stefan
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, environmental law, interpretation of the law








C_2013274EN.01000203.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Ferdinand Stefan
(Case C-329/13)
2013/C 274/04
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferdinand Stefan

Defendant: Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management

Questions referred







1.


As regards the validity of Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC: (1)

Pursuant to subparagraph (b) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, is Directive 2003/4/EC valid in its entirety and/or are all parts of Directive 2003/4/EC valid, in particular having regard to the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?










2.


As regards the interpretation of Environmental Information Directive 2003/4/EC:
In the event that the Court of Justice of the European Union affirms the validity of Directive 2003/4/EC in its entirety or the validity of parts of Directive 2003/4/EC, the Court of Justice is requested, pursuant to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the first sentence of Article 267 TFEU, to give a ruling on the extent to which, and the assumptions on the basis of which, the provisions of the Environmental Information Directive are compatible with the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the requirements of Article 6 TEU.






(1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).
Case T-333/13: Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Westermann Lernspielverlag/OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK)
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01003601.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/36





Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Westermann Lernspielverlag/OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK)
(Case T-333/13)
2013/C 252/60
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

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 3 April 2013, Case R 1323/2012-2, relating to the opposition proceedings No. B 1 724 593 [Community trade mark application 009080359] between DISET, S.A. and Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH;










—


Order the Defendant to bear the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘bambinoLÜK’, for goods in classes 9, 16 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 080 359

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the figurative mark ‘BAMBINO’ for goods in classes 16, 28 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and allows the CTM application to proceed for certain goods of class 9

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 581/2013 of 17 June 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Αγουρέλαιο Χαλκιδικής (Agoureleo Chalkidikis) (PDO))
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Greece, designation of origin, olive oil, product designation








L_2013169EN.01003001.xml










21.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 169/30








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 581/2013
of 17 June 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Αγουρέλαιο Χαλκιδικής (Agoureleo Chalkidikis) (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced 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 (2).












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Αγουρέλαιο Χαλκιδικής (Agoureleo Chalkidikis)’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Αγουρέλαιο Χαλκιδικής (Agoureleo Chalkidikis)’ 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, 17 June 2013.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,
Neelie KROES
            

Vice-President






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ C 294, 29.9.2012, p. 14.




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

Class 1.5.   Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oils, etc.)

GREECE
Αγουρέλαιο Χαλκιδικής (Agoureleo Chalkidikis) (PDO)
Case C-328/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, collective bargaining, interpretation of the law, working conditions








C_2013274EN.01000202.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/2





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen
(Case C-328/13)
2013/C 274/03
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

Defendant: Wirtschaftskammer Österreich — Fachverband der Autobus-, Luftfahrt- und Schifffahrtsunternehmungen

Questions referred







(a)


Is the wording of Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC, (1) according to which the ‘terms and conditions’ agreed in any collective agreement and applicable to the transferor must continue to be observed ‘on the same terms’ until the ‘date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement’, to be interpreted as also covering terms and conditions laid down by a collective agreement which have continuing effect indefinitely under national law, despite the termination of the collective agreement, until another collective agreement takes effect or the employees concerned have concluded new individual agreements?










(b)


Is Article 3(3) of Directive 2001/23/EC to be interpreted to the effect that ‘application of another collective agreement’ of the transferee is to be understood as including the continuing effect of the likewise terminated collective agreement of the transferee in the abovementioned sense?






(1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 580/2013 of 17 June 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisse de Montbéliard (PGI))
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, designation of origin, meat product, pigmeat, product designation








L_2013169EN.01002801.xml










21.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 169/28








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 580/2013
of 17 June 2013
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Saucisse de Montbéliard (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 repealed and replaced 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 (2).












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, France’s application to register the name ‘Saucisse de Montbéliard’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).












(3)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Saucisse de Montbéliard’ 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, 17 June 2013.


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

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(3)  
            OJ C 285, 21.9.2012, p. 18.




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

Class 1.2.   Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)

FRANCE
Saucisse de Montbéliard (PGI)
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 June 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case C.39226 (2) — Lundbeck — Rapporteur: Czech Republic
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: dominant position, fine, pharmaceutical industry








C_2015080EN.01000501.xml










7.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 17 June 2013 regarding a draft decision relating to Case C.39226 (2) — Lundbeck
Rapporteur: Czech Republic
(2015/C 80/05)






1.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that fines should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










2.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amounts of the fines for Lundbeck.










3.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Lundbeck should be given a 10 % reduction of the basic amount in view of the long duration of the investigation. A minority disagrees.










4.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for Lundbeck. A minority abstains.










5.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission’s approach to base the calculation of fines for the generic undertakings on the value transferred.










6.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the generic undertakings should be given a 10 % reduction in view of the long duration of the investigation. A minority disagrees.










7.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amounts of the fines for the generic undertakings. A minority abstains.










8.


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission to reject the inability to pay request made in this case.










9.


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case T-324/13: Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Endoceutics/OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013252EN.01003201.xml










31.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/32





Action brought on 17 June 2013 — Endoceutics/OHIM — Merck (FEMIVIA)
(Case T-324/13)
2013/C 252/53
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 15 April 2013, in Case R 1021/2012-4;










—


Reject the opposition of the other party and allow registration of the Community trade mark applied for, namely the application for the mark FEMIVIA under application No. 9 386 343;










—


Order the other party to pay the applicant’s costs on the appeal and regarding the proceedings before the OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FEMIVIA’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 9 386 343

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark of the word mark ‘FEMIBION’, for goods in class 5 and International registration with effect in the European Union for the figurative mark in black and white ‘femibion’ for goods of classes 5 29 and 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-327/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Burgo Group SpA v Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting as liquidator of Illochroma SA
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, financial solvency, holding company, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, liquidation








C_2013226EN.01000902.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 17 June 2013 — Burgo Group SpA v Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting as liquidator of Illochroma SA
(Case C-327/13)
(2013/C 226/17)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Burgo Group SpA

Respondents: Illochroma SA, in liquidation, Jérôme Theetten, acting as liquidator of Illochroma SA

Questions referred

Must Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 [of 29 May 2000] on insolvency proceedings (1) and, in particular, Articles 3, 16, 27, 28 and 29 thereof, be interpreted to the effect that:






(a)


‘establishment’, as referred to in Article 3(2), must be understood as referring to a branch of the debtor against which main insolvency proceedings have been opened and precludes, in the context of the concurrent winding-up of a number of companies belonging to a single group, secondary proceedings from being brought against those companies in the Member State in which their registered office is situated, on the ground that they possess legal personality?










(b)


the person or authority empowered to request the opening of secondary proceedings must reside or have its registered office in the territory of the Member State of the court before which the action seeking the opening of secondary proceedings has been brought or must all European Union citizens have that right of action, provided that they can demonstrate a legal link to the establishment concerned?










(c)


in so far as main insolvency proceedings are winding-up proceedings, the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings against an establishment is possible only if they meet the criteria as to appropriateness, which lie within the discretion of the court … before which the action seeking the opening of secondary proceedings has been brought?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.
Case T-69/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, capital movement, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2013225EN.01007901.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/79





Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Zavvar v Council
(Case T-69/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 225/175
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 22 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) are not to apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.
Case T-71/12: Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Removal of the persons concerned from the list — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2013-06-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Iran, common foreign and security policy, international sanctions, nuclear non-proliferation








C_2013225EN.01008001.xml










3.8.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 225/80





Order of the General Court of 17 June 2013 — Meskarian v Council
(Case T-71/12) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Removal of the persons concerned from the list - No need to adjudicate)
2013/C 225/177
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mohammed Reza Meskarian (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for (i) annulment of point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), point 13 of Table A in the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant, and (ii) a declaration that Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Article 16(2) of Council Regulation No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) are not to apply to the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 109, 14.4.2012.