do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-433/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of fixing a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01003503.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/35





Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)
(Case T-433/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of fixing a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
2014/C 52/66
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Fissl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2012 (Case R 1693/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of fixing of a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
Joined Cases C-614/12 and C-10/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of European Union law — Absence — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of EU law, civil servant, dismissal, jurisdiction








C_2014112EN.01001602.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/16





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)
(Joined Cases C-614/12 and C-10/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of European Union law - Absence - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
2014/C 112/19
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring courts

Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Dutka József (C-614/12) and Csilla Sajtos (C-10/13)

Defendants: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (C-614/12) and Budapest Főváros VI. Ker. Önkormányzata (C-10/13)

Re:

Requests for a preliminary ruling — Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság and Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and Articles 30 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection of workers in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without reasons being given — Official of a public administrative body who has been dismissed on the basis of a provision of national legislation governing the terms and conditions of civil servants.

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 6 December 2012, and by the Fővárosi Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary), by decision of 21 September 2012.


(1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.
Case T-434/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01003601.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/36





Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)
(Case T-434/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
2014/C 52/67
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Fissl, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 July 2012 (Case R 1692/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a fabric tag with metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.
Case C-332/13: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No implementation of European Union law —  — Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, application of EU law, civil servant, jurisdiction, unfair dismissal








C_2014112EN.01002001.xml










14.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/20





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Ferenc Weigl v Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal
(Case C-332/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No implementation of European Union law - Court manifestly lacking jurisdiction))
2014/C 112/24
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferenc Weigl

Defendant: Nemzeti Innovációs Hivatal

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 6 TEU and of Articles 30 and 51 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Dismissal without any reason given — Official of a body of the public authorities having been dismissed on the basis of a provision of the national legislation laying down the civil service code.

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Kúria (Hungary), by decision of 5 June 2013, as supplemented by an additional decision of 18 July 2013.


(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.
Case C-19/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, social security








C_2014142EN.01000901.xml










12.5.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/9





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca v Stadt Kevelaer
(Case C-19/14)
2014/C 142/10
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Sozialgericht Duisburg (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Ana-Maria Talasca, Angelina Marita Talasca

Defendant: Stadt Kevelaer

Questions referred







(a)


Is the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) compatible with European Community law?










(b)


If not, must the legal situation be altered by the Federal Republic of Germany, or does a different legal situation arise immediately, and if so, which?










(c)


Does the second sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of Book II of the SGB remain in force until a (possibly) necessary change to the law by the institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany?
Case C-451/12: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Josune Esteban Garcia v Cachorros Plus CBF SCP
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contractual liability, electronic commerce, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, territorial jurisdiction








C_2014175EN.01003301.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/33





Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Josune Esteban Garcia v Cachorros Plus CBF SCP
(Case C-451/12) (1)

2014/C 175/41
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 399, 22. 12. 2012.
Case C-328/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency — Defendant resident in a third country — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, legal domicile, third country








C_2014085EN.01000501.xml










22.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 85/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann) v Lilly Hertel
(Case C-328/12) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of the debtor’s insolvency - Defendant resident in a third country - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of his main interests)
2014/C 85/08
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ralph Schmid (liquidator of the assets of Aletta Zimmermann)

Defendant: Lilly Hertel

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the debtor has the centre of his main interests for decisions deriving directly from the insolvency proceedings — Action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency (Insolvenzanfechtungsklage) brought against a defendant whose place of residence is in a third country.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence is not within the territory of a Member State.


(1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.
Case C-444/13: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov — Romania) — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Brașov
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, VAT, basis of tax assessment, consumer price, interpretation of the law, purchase








C_2014175EN.01003401.xml










10.6.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/34





Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Brașov — Romania) — Imre Solyom, Luiza Solyom v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice a Judeţului Brașov
(Case C-444/13) (1)

2014/C 175/44
Language of the case: Romanian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 325, 9. 11. 2013.
Case C-17/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Société Générale SA; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, deduction at source, double taxation, equal treatment, residence, shareholding, tax on income








C_2014129EN.01001001.xml










28.4.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — Société Générale SA; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
(Case C-17/14)
(2014/C 129/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: Société Générale SA

Other party to the appeal in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Questions referred







1.


Does the application of Article 63 TFEU require that the comparison of a non-resident with a resident in a case in which dividend tax is withheld on a dividend payment by the source State be extended to the corporation tax against which the dividend tax is set off in the case of residents?










2.








(a)


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, should account be taken, in making that comparison, of all the costs which, in an economic sense, are connected with the shares from which the dividend arises?










(b)


If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, should account then be taken of a possible write-off of a bought dividend and of a possible financing burden resulting from ownership of the shares concerned?














3.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is it sufficient, in the assessment as to whether a potentially discriminatory withholding tax levied at source is effectively neutralised on the basis of a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the source State, that (i) the double taxation convention concerned contains a provision in that regard, and that, although that option is not unconditional, (ii) in the case in question it has the result that the Netherlands tax burden for a non-resident is not heavier than that for a resident? In the case of inadequate compensation in the year in which the dividends are received, is it relevant, in the assessment of that neutralisation, that there is the possibility of carrying forward the deficit and of utilising the set-off in subsequent years?
Case T-149/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica, SA v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO — Earlier national figurative mark micro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Power to alter decisions)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01003402.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/34





Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Investrónica, SA v OHIM — Olympus Imaging (MICRO)
(Case T-149/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark MICRO - Earlier national figurative mark micro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Power to alter decisions)
2014/C 52/62
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Investrónica, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Olympus Imaging Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: C. Opatz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Investrónica, SA and Olympus Imaging Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 31 January 2012 (Case R 347/2011-4).










2.


Allows the opposition with regard to the goods covered by Class 9 and corresponding to the following description: ‘Photographic apparatus and instruments, digital cameras, interchangeable lenses, and parts and accessories therefor as far as included in Class 9’.










3.


Orders OHIM to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.










4.


Orders Olympus Imaging Corp. to bear its own costs, together with half of the costs incurred by Investrónica, SA.






(1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion and amending Decision 2007/659/EC (COM(2013)0839 — C7-0488/2013 — 2013/0413(CNS))
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, Committee on Regional Development, European Parliament
Subjects: France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, derogation from EU law, indirect tax, originating product, spirits, tax exemption








C_2016482EN.01024501.xml










23.12.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 482/245





P7_TA(2014)0034
Authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 January 2014 on the proposal for a Council decision authorising France to apply a reduced rate of certain indirect taxes on ‘traditional’ rum produced in Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Martinique and Réunion and amending Decision 2007/659/EC (COM(2013)0839 — C7-0488/2013 — 2013/0413(CNS))
(Special legislative procedure — consultation)
(2016/C 482/46)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2013)0839),










—


having regard to Article 349 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C7-0488/2013),










—


having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A7-0013/2014),












1.


Approves the Commission proposal;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case T-383/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Ferienhäuser zum See v OHIM — Sunparks Groep (Sun Park Holidays) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark Sun Park Holidays — Earlier Community figurative mark Sunparks Holiday Parks — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, holiday, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2014052EN.01003502.xml










22.2.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 52/35





Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Ferienhäuser zum See v OHIM — Sunparks Groep (Sun Park Holidays)
(Case T-383/12) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark Sun Park Holidays - Earlier Community figurative mark Sunparks Holiday Parks - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
2014/C 52/65
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ferienhäuser zum See GmbH (Marienmünster, Germany) (represented by: M. Boden and I. Höfener, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sunparks Groep NV (Den Haan, Belgium)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2012 (Case R 1928/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sunparks Groep NV and Ferienhäuser zum See GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the applicant to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.