do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-451/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG
Date: 2013-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, fine








C_2013344EN.01004101.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/41





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Gigaset AG v SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG
(Case C-451/13)
2013/C 344/71
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gigaset AG

Defendants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG

Questions referred







1.


In a decision by which it imposes a fine on several natural or legal persons as joint and several debtors for a breach of Article 101 TFEU, is the Commission also obliged to give a conclusive ruling on the question as to what shares of the fine should be apportioned to the individual joint and several debtors?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Is a Commission decision which contains no express instruction as to apportionment among joint and several debtors to be interpreted as meaning that the fine is to be paid in equal shares by all of the joint and several debtors?










(b)


If Question 2(a) is answered in the negative:
Can the courts of the Member States close the gap in the decision that ensues if the Commission does not rule on the apportionment of the fine among joint and several debtors, without any need for a supplementary decision by the Commission?














3.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2(b) in the affirmative: Does European Union law contain provisions as to how a fine should be apportioned among joint and several debtors?










4.


If Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
Can a joint and several debtor which has paid the fine in full or in part seek settlement by the other joint and several debtors before a final decision has been taken on an action brought challenging the fixing of the fine?
Case T-440/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (shape of boxes of chocolates)
Date: 2013-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013344EN.01005702.xml










23.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 344/57





Action brought on 12 August 2013 — ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas v OHIM (shape of boxes of chocolates)
(Case T-440/13)
2013/C 344/104
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Zakład Wyrobów Cukierniczych ‘Millano’ Krzysztof Kotas (Przeźmierowo, Poland) (represented by: B. Kański, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 May 2013 in Case R 755/2012-2.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of boxes of chocolates for goods in Class 30 — application no 10 359 602

Decision of the Examiner: application for registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009
Case T-427/13: Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)
Date: 2013-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2013313EN.01003001.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/30





Action brought on 12 August 2013 — Gruppo Norton v OHIM — Marín Nicolás (Gruppo Norton S.r.l.)
(Case T-427/13)
2013/C 313/56
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gruppo Norton Srl (Carini, Italy) (represented by: García Lirola, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Victoriano Marín Nicolás (Alcantarailla, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


deliver a judgment in which, ruling on the substance of the case, it upholds the registration of the trade mark for all of the goods in respect of which it is sought.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gruppo Norton Srl

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Gruppo Norton S.r.l.’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9 — Community trade mark application No 10 169 753

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Victoriano Marín Nicolás

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘NORTON HISPANO’ for goods in Class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Inadmissibility of the appeal

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009
Case C-449/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others
Date: 2013-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, consumer credit, consumer information, contract terms, financial solvency, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure








C_2013313EN.01001101.xml










26.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/11





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans (France) lodged on 12 August 2013 — CA Consumer Finance v Ingrid Bakkaus and Others
(Case C-449/13)
2013/C 313/20
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance d’Orléans

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CA Consumer Finance

Defendants: Ingrid Bakkaus, Charline Bonato, née Savary, Florian Bonato

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers be interpreted as meaning that the onus is on creditors to prove that they have correctly and fully performed their obligations under the national law transposing the directive when a credit agreement is entered into and performed?










2.


Does Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers preclude a creditor from being able to prove that it has performed its obligations correctly and in full solely by means of a standard term in the credit agreement, whereby the consumer acknowledges the performance of those obligations, without that term being supported by documents issued by the creditor and supplied to the borrower?










3.


Must Article 8 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements (1) be interpreted as precluding the creditworthiness check from being carried out solely on the basis of information supplied by the consumer, without such information being effectively scrutinised against other evidence?










4.








—


Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible for a creditor to provide adequate explanations to the consumer if it has not checked the consumer’s financial situation and needs beforehand?










—


Must Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC be interpreted as precluding the adequate explanations to be supplied to the consumer being provided only in the contractual information mentioned in the credit agreement, without a specific document being drawn up?










(1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).
Case C-452/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning
Date: 2013-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, air transport, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, transport regulations








C_2013325EN.01001403.xml










9.11.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/14





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 12 August 2013 — Germanwings GmbH v Ronny Henning
(Case C-452/13)
2013/C 325/25
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Germanwings GmbH

Defendant: Ronny Henning

Question referred

What time is relevant for the term ‘time of arrival’ used in Articles 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91: (1)







(a)


the time that the aircraft lands on the runway (‘touchdown’);










(b)


the time that the aircraft reaches its parking position and the parking brakes are engaged or the chocks have been applied (‘in-block time’);










(c)


the time that the aircraft door is opened;










(d)


a time defined by the parties in the context of party autonomy.






(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.