do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-500/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014  — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: registered trade mark, spare part, vehicle parts








C_2015046EN.01002201.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/22





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy) lodged on 10 November 2014 — Ford Motor Company v Wheeltrims srl
(Case C-500/14)
(2015/C 046/28)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale ordinario di Torino

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ford Motor Company

Defendant: Wheeltrims srl

Questions referred







1)


Is it compatible with [EU] law to interpret Article 14 of Directive 98/71 (1) and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (2) as conferring on producers of replacement parts and accessories the right to use trade marks registered by third parties in order to allow the end purchaser to restore the original appearance of a complex product and, therefore, also when the proprietor of the trade mark applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?










2)


Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation No 207/2009 (3) and Directive (EEC) 89/104 (4) and, therefore, when the proprietor of the trade mark also applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?






(1)  Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs (OJ 1998 L 289, p. 28).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

(4)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
Case C-501/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2014  — EL-EM-2001 Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, legal person, natural person, traffic offence








C_2015046EN.01002301.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 November 2014 — EL-EM-2001 Ltd. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
(Case C-501/14)
(2015/C 046/29)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szegedi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EL-EM-2001 Ltd.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

Questions referred







1)


Should Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an infringement, the measure necessary in order to implement a penalty stipulated and applied by the Member State may only be applied to the person who has committed the infringement?
To put it in different terms: in the light of Article 18 of Regulation No 561/2006/EC, is it a breach of the obligation upon Member States pursuant to the first sentence of Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC if national legislation provides that a measure which is necessary in order to implement a penalty stipulated and applied by the Member State may be applied to a (natural or legal) person who has not been found by means of an administrative procedure to have committed an infringement?










2)


If the answer to Question I is negative, should Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC be taken to mean that, where a measure is taken against a third (natural or legal) person on account of an infringement by a different person, despite the fact that it has not been established that the third person committed the infringement, the measure constitutes a penalty applied to him irrespective of the name given to it?










3)


If the answer to Question II is affirmative, is the prohibition on subjecting an infringement to more than one assessment, as laid down in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 561/2006/EC, breached by national legislation which makes it possible, in order to implement a penalty applied because of an infringement of rules by the driver of a vehicle, to impose on a different (natural or legal) person something described as a measure which, however, in terms of its content, is a penalty?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85; OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1.
Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2014 in Case E-2/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Failure to implement)
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, pollution from ships








C_2015158EN.01001301.xml










13.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/13





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 November 2014
in Case E-2/14
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Failure to implement)
(2015/C 158/07)
In Case E-2/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Case T-290/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — CMBG v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, EU programme, economic stabilisation, indemnification, legal basis, report








C_2015026EN.01002901.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/29





Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — CMBG v Commission and ECB
(Case T-290/13) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 026/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CMBG Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


CMBG Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice of the European Union
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU)








C_2014395EN.01000101.xml










10.11.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 395/1






Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2014/C 395/01)

Last publication


OJ C 388, 3.11.2014


Past publications


OJ C 380, 27.10.2014


OJ C 372, 20.10.2014


OJ C 361, 13.10.2014


OJ C 351, 6.10.2014


OJ C 339, 29.9.2014


OJ C 329, 22.9.2014

These texts are available on:
EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu
Case T-291/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Eleftheriou and Papachirstofi v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, EU programme, economic stabilisation, indemnification, legal basis, report








C_2015026EN.01002902.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/29





Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Eleftheriou and Papachirstofi v Commission and ECB
(Case T-291/13) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 026/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Andreas Eleftheriou (Dherynia, Cyprus); Eleni Eleftheriou (Dherynia); and Lilia Papachirstofi (Dherynia) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Andreas Eleftheriou, Ms Eleni Eleftheriou and Ms Lilia Papachristofi shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Case T-293/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — Theophilou v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment and compensation — Stability support programme for Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Causal link — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cyprus, EU programme, economic stabilisation, indemnification, legal basis, report








C_2015026EN.01003101.xml










26.1.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/31





Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — Theophilou v Commission and ECB
(Case T-293/13) (1)

((Action for annulment and compensation - Stability support programme for Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the ESM - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Causal link - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2015/C 026/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Christos Theophilou (Nicosia, Cyprus); and Eleni Theophilou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

Re:

First, application for annulment of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 of the Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) on 26 April 2013, and, second, for compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the inclusion of paragraphs 1.23 to 1.27 in the Memorandum of Understanding and an infringement of the Commission’s supervisory obligation.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Mr Christos Theophilou and Ms Eleni Theophilou shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).






(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2014 in Case E-6/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/43/EC — Failure to implement)
Date: 2014-11-10
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, explosive, information system, infringement procedure (EU), labelling, national implementing measure, traceability








C_2015158EN.01001401.xml










13.5.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/14





JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 10 November 2014
in Case E-6/14
EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/43/EC — Failure to implement)
(2015/C 158/08)
In Case E-6/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
The Court hereby:






1.


Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter XXIX of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2008/43/EC of 4 April 2008 setting up, pursuant to Council Directive 93/15/EEC, a system for the identification and traceability of explosives for civil uses), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.










2.


Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.