do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-11/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)
Date: 2014-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014135EN.01004101.xml










5.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 135/41






Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (Pianissimo)
(Case T-11/14)
(2014/C 135/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter, lawyer)

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 Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2013 given in Case R 441/2013-4;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred before the OHIM.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Pianissimo’ for goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 11 102 266
         

Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) CTMR.
Case T-6/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Banco de Santander and Others v Commission
Date: 2014-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, bank, contract, control of State aid, hire purchase, reimbursement of aid








C_2014102EN.01003602.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/36





Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Banco de Santander and Others v Commission
(Case T-6/14)
2014/C 102/57
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Banco de Santander, SA (Santander, Spain); Santander Investment, SA (Santander, Spain); and Naviera Séneca, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case C-2/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen and Nadine Schönherr
Date: 2014-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drugs classification, medicinal product, psychotropic substance








C_2014071EN.01001201.xml










8.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen and Nadine Schönherr
(Case C-2/14)
(2014/C 71/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Thi Bich Ngoc Nguyen
Nadine Schönherr
Other party to the proceedings: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Question referred

Are medicinal products, as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) which contain ‘scheduled substances’ listed in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 (2) and (EC) No 111/2005 (3) always excluded from the scope of those regulations in accordance with Article 2(a) of those regulations, or is that to be presumed only where the medicinal products are compounded in such a way that the scheduled substances cannot for the purposes of those regulations be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).
Case T-10/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Inditex and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega v Commission
Date: 2014-01-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, State aid, free competition, hire purchase








C_2014052EN.01005101.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/51





Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Inditex and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega v Commission
(Case T-10/14)
2014/C 52/99
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) and Naviera Nebulosa de Omega, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;










—


in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;










—


in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;










—


annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.
Case C-3/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
Date: 2014-01-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, equal treatment, telephone charges, transmission network, universal service








C_2014102EN.01001301.xml










7.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
(Case C-3/14)
2014/C 102/17
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (2) be interpreted as meaning that every measure taken by a national regulatory authority in order to fulfil the obligation arising from Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 affects trade between Member States where that measure may ensure that end-users from other Member States are able to access non-geographic numbers within the territory of that Member State?










2.


Must Article 7(3) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 20 of Directive 2002/21 be interpreted as meaning that, in resolving disputes between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services concerning the fulfilment by one of those undertakings of the obligation arising from Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, a national regulatory authority cannot conduct consolidation proceedings even where the measure affects trade between Member States and national law requires the national regulatory authority to conduct consolidation proceedings in every case where a measure may affect that trade?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must Article 7(3) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 20 of Directive 2002/21, read in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that a national court is obliged to refrain from applying provisions of national law which require the national regulatory authority to conduct consolidation proceedings in every case where a measure taken by that authority may affect trade between Member States?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.