do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-553/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS v Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: indirect tax, local government, means of public conveyance, public financing, tax collection, tax on consumption








C_2014015EN.01000801.xml










18.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS v Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet
(Case C-553/13)
2014/C 15/10
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Statoil Fuel & Retail Eesti AS

Defendant: Tallinna Ettevõtlusamet

Question referred







1.


May the funding of the organisation of public transport in the territory of a local authority be regarded as a specific purpose within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC (1) if the performance and funding of such a task is an obligation of the local authority?










2.


If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC be interpreted as meaning that making provision in national law for an indirect tax which is charged on the sale of excise goods to the final consumer and is used solely for the organisation of public transport is consistent with that provision, if the organisation of public transport is an obligation of the local authority receiving the tax which must be fulfilled regardless of the existence of such an indirect tax, and the level of funding of the organisation of public transport ultimately does not depend automatically on the amount of tax collected, because the amount of the sum allocated to the organisation of public transport is calculated precisely in such a way that if the indirect tax being collected produces more income, the allocation of other funds by the public authorities to the organisation of public transport is reduced to that extent and, conversely, if the sales tax produces less income, the local authority has to increase other funds to that extent for the organisation of public transport, it being possible, however, in the event of the revenue differing from that forecast to change the amount of expenditure on the organisation of public transport by means of amending the local authority’s budget?










3.


If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC then be interpreted as meaning that the additional taxation of excise goods by an indirect tax, the particular objective of using which is determined after the time of coming into being of the obligation to pay such an indirect tax, is consistent with that provision?






(1)  Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12).
Case T-569/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01002501.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/25





Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
(Case T-569/13)
2014/C 24/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2013 given in Case R 1561/2012-4;










—


Order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.





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 in red, gold, white and black containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano’ for a range of goods and services in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 933

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark No 291 655 for the word ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known mark in Spain ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
Lux prize : projecting cultural diversity.
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: cinema, cultural event, cultural prize, film industry

lux Prize 2007-2013

EN

B
D
-
0
3
-
1
3
-
5
0
1
-
E
N
-
J

Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament

diversity and should cherish it. This is the aim of this award.

in an open Europe. In a Europe which can be proud of its cultural 

We have proscribed racism and xenophobia. Today, we live in a free, 

 We have overcome war and hunger. We have opened borders. 

euROPean PaRliamenT

lux
PRize

PROjeCTing CulTuRal diveRsiTy

The bROken CiRCle bReakdOwn 
Felix Van GroeninGen 

miele 
Valeria Golino 

The selFish gianT 
Clio BarnarD 

3 Films | 24 languages 
28 euROPean COunTRies

www.luxPRize.eu

5,5215456,55,5153153455,545
Case C-556/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 October 2013 — UAB ‘Litaksa’ v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Lithuania, equal treatment, free movement of persons, insurance contract, interpretation of the law, personal accident insurance








C_2014024EN.01000303.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/3





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 October 2013 — UAB ‘Litaksa’ v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE
(Case C-556/13)
2014/C 24/06
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UAB ‘Litaksa’

Defendant:‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 2 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (1) as amended by Article 4 of Directive 2005/14/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to an insurance contract do not have the right to agree on a territorial restriction of the insurance cover for the person insured (to apply a different insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used — either in the whole of the European Union or only in the Republic of Lithuania), but in any event without the cover of victims being restricted, that is to say, to define use of the vehicle outside the Republic of Lithuania in another Member State of the European Union as a factor increasing the insurance risk, in which event an additional insurance premium has to be paid?










2.


Are the principle of the free movement of persons and vehicles in the entire area of the European Union and the general European Union principle of equality (non-discrimination) to be interpreted as being contravened by the aforementioned agreement of the parties to an insurance contract, whereby the insurance risk is linked to the territorial use of the vehicle?






(1)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

(2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).
Case F-108/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — ZZ v Council
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European civil service, damages, indemnification, pay, payment








C_2014024EN.01004102.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/41





Action brought on 28 October 2013 — ZZ v Council
(Case F-108/13)
2014/C 24/77
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the applicant’s salary statements for January, February and March 2013, established pursuant to Council decision of 20 December 2012 by which it refused to adopt the Commission’s proposal for a regulation adjusting, with the effect from 1 July 2012, the remuneration and pensions of the officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the applicant’s salary statements issued since 15 January 2013;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant arrears of remuneration to which he is entitled from 1 July 2012 together with late-payment interest calculated, with effect from the date on which the arrears fell due, at the rate fixed by the ECB for main refinancing operations increased by two points;










—


order the Council to pay the applicant a symbolic EUR 1 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the administrative errors repeatedly committed by the Council and the appointing authority;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.
Case C-554/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: illegal migration, offence, public order, return migration








C_2014009EN.01002002.xml










11.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/20





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Z. Zh.; other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie and Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie; other party: I.O.
(Case C-554/13)
2014/C 9/31
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Z. Zh.

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
and

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Other party: I.O.

Questions referred







1.


Does a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State pose a risk to public policy, within the meaning of Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348; ‘the Return Directive’), merely because he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence under national law, or is it necessary that he should have been convicted in a criminal court for the commission of that offence and, in the latter case, must that conviction have become final and absolute?










2.


In the assessment as to whether a third-country national who is staying illegally within the territory of a Member State poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, do other facts and circumstances of the case, in addition to a suspicion or a conviction, also play a role, such as the severity or type of criminal offence under national law, the time that has elapsed and the intention of the person concerned?










3.


Do the facts and circumstances of the case which are relevant to the assessment referred to in Question 2 also have a role to play in the option provided for in Article 7(4) of the Return Directive, in a case where the person concerned poses a risk to public policy within the meaning of that provision, of being able to choose between, on the one hand, refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure and, on the other hand, granting a period for voluntary departure which is shorter than seven days?
Case T-568/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (KIMBO)
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014024EN.01002402.xml










25.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/24





Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (KIMBO)
(Case T-568/13)
2014/C 24/43
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2013 given in Cases R 636/2012-4 and R 608/2012-4;










—


Order the intervener to pay the costs of proceedings.





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 word mark ‘KIMBO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 21, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 420 973

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade marks No 291 655, No 451 559 and No 2 244 563

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.
Case C-555/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, market approval, medicinal product, patents licence








C_2014015EN.01000901.xml










18.1.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others
(Case C-555/13)
2014/C 15/11
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

Defendants: Accord Healthcare Limited, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

Question referred

May Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) be interpreted as permitting, by means of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the period for exclusive exploitation of the patented invention to be more than fifteen years from the date of the first authorisation to place the medicinal product in question on the market within the Community (not including the extension provided for in Article 13(3) of that regulation)?


(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) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).
Council Decision 2013/533/CFSP of 28 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger)
Date: 2013-10-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Niger, budgetary expenditure, common security and defence policy, terrorism




L_2013288EN.01006801.xml










30.10.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 288/68








            COUNCIL DECISION 2013/533/CFSP
of 28 October 2013
         
amending Decision 2012/392/CFSP on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger)


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 28 and Articles 42(4) and 43(2) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/392/CFSP (1) which expires on 15 July 2014.












(2)


The current financial reference amount covers the period until 31 October 2013.












(3)


Decision 2012/392/CFSP should therefore be amended to provide for the financial reference amount for the remaining period until 15 July 2014.












(4)


EUCAP Sahel Niger will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union’s external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 13 of Decision 2012/392/CFSP, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:

‘1.   The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Niger for the period from 16 July 2012 to 31 October 2013 shall be EUR 8 700 000.
The financial reference amount to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Sahel Niger for the period from 1 November 2013 to 15 July 2014 shall be EUR 6 500 000.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 28 October 2013.


For the Council


The President

L. LINKEVIČIUS
            





(1)  Council Decision 2012/392/CFSP of 16 July 2012 on the European Union CSDP mission in Niger (EUCAP Sahel Niger) (OJ L 187, 17.7.2012, p. 48).