do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-31/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the word mark Premeno — Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino — Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 43(1))
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, health care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015046EN.01001601.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/16





Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH, Janssen-Cilag GmbH
(Case C-31/14 P) (1)

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the word mark Premeno - Opposition from the proprietor of the earlier national word mark Pramino - Limitation of the goods designated in the Community trade mark application - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 43(1)))
(2015/C 046/21)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kessel medintim GmbH, formerly Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (represented by: A. Jacob, Rechtsanwalt), Janssen-Cilag GmbH (represented by: M. Wenz, Rechtsanwältin)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs;










3.


Declares that Janssen-Cilag GmbH is to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.
Case C-128/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Articles 4(1) and 13 — Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 — Article 19(1)(a) — Export refunds — Advance payments on refunds — Conditions for the release of the guarantee furnished to ensure the repayment of the advance)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, export refund, monetary compensatory amount, redemption








C_2015046EN.01000302.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Cruz & Companhia Lda v Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL
(Case C-128/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Articles 4(1) and 13 - Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 - Article 19(1)(a) - Export refunds - Advance payments on refunds - Conditions for the release of the guarantee furnished to ensure the repayment of the advance))
(2015/C 046/04)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cruz & Companhia Lda

Defendants: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP (IFAP), Caixa Central — Caixa Central de Crédito Agrícola Mútuo, CRL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 19(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3403/93 of 10 December 1993, must be interpreted as meaning that the guarantee furnished by an exporter to ensure the repayment of the advance received by way of export refund must not be considered to be extinguished even where it is established that the exporter submitted the acceptance of the export declaration, proof that the goods left the customs territory of the European Union within a maximum period of 60 days after that acceptance, and the proof of clearance of those products through customs in the importing third country, if the other conditions for the grant of the refund, in particular the condition of sound and fair marketable quality of the products exported, provided for in Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/94 of 26 July 1994, are not satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.
Case C-590/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — VAT — Sixth Directive — Articles 18 and 22 — Right to deduct — Intra-Community acquisitions — Reverse charge procedure — Substantive requirements — Formal requirements — Failure to comply with the formal requirements)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, administrative formalities, basis of tax assessment, tax relief








C_2015046EN.01001402.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/14





Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-590/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - VAT - Sixth Directive - Articles 18 and 22 - Right to deduct - Intra-Community acquisitions - Reverse charge procedure - Substantive requirements - Formal requirements - Failure to comply with the formal requirements))
(2015/C 046/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Idexx Laboratories Italia Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as containing formal requirements relating to the right to deduct, failure to comply with which, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, cannot result in the loss of that right.


(1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.
Case T-618/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AAVA CORE — Earlier Community word mark JAVA and well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6a of the Paris Convention JAVA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No likelihood of association — Link between the signs — No similarity of the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2015034EN.01003802.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/38





Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)
(Case T-618/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark AAVA CORE - Earlier Community word mark JAVA and well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6a of the Paris Convention JAVA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of association - Link between the signs - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2015/C 034/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: T. Heydn, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2013 (Case R 1369/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Oracle America, Inc. and Aava Mobile Oy.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action.










2)


Orders Oracle America, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.
Case F-103/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — DE v EMA (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff of EMA — Evaluation report — Application for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Infringement of procedural rules — None)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European official, report, servant (EU), working conditions








C_2015034EN.01004702.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/47





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — DE v EMA
(Case F-103/13) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff of EMA - Evaluation report - Application for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Infringement of procedural rules - None))
(2015/C 034/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: S. Marino, T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of the applicant’s performance evaluation report in respect of the period from 15 September 2010 to 15 September 2012.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1)


Dismisses the action;










2)


Declares that DE is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency.






(1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 41.
Case C-212/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of individuals — Processing of personal data — Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’ )
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cross-frontier data flow, data protection, natural person, personal data, protection of privacy, video surveillance








C_2015046EN.01000601.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů
(Case C-212/13) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals - Processing of personal data - Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’))
(2015/C 046/07)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: František Ryneš

Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.
Case C-678/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement — Services offered in Spain by pension funds and insurance companies established in another Member State — Occupational pension schemes — Obligation to designate a tax representative resident in Spain — Restrictive nature — Justification — Effective fiscal supervision and prevention of tax avoidance — Proportionality)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, infringement of EU law, insurance company, principle of proportionality, provision of services, residence, supplementary pension, tax avoidance, tax inspection








C_2015046EN.01000201.xml










9.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/2





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-678/11) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement - Services offered in Spain by pension funds and insurance companies established in another Member State - Occupational pension schemes - Obligation to designate a tax representative resident in Spain - Restrictive nature - Justification - Effective fiscal supervision and prevention of tax avoidance - Proportionality))
(2015/C 046/02)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Declares that, by having adopted the provisions of Article 46(c) of Royal Legislative Decree 1/2002 approving the consolidated text of the Law governing pension schemes and funds (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2002, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Regulación de los Planes y Fondos de Pensiones) of 29 November 2002, and Article 86(1) of Royal Legislative Decree 6/2004 approving the consolidated text of the Law on the organisation and supervision of private insurance (Real Decreto Legislativo 6/2004, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de ordenación y supervisión de los seguros privados) of 29 October 2004, pursuant to which pension funds established in Member States other than the Kingdom of Spain and offering occupational pension schemes in that Member State and insurance companies operating in Spain under the freedom to provide services are required to appoint a tax representative resident in that Member State, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU;










2)


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3)


Orders the European Commission, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.
2014/937/EU: Decision of the European Central Bank of 11 December 2014 on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2015 (ECB/2014/53)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: euro, euro area, issuing of currency








L_2014365EN.01016301.xml










19.12.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 365/163








            DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 11 December 2014
         
on the approval of the volume of coin issuance in 2015

(ECB/2014/53)


(2014/937/EU)



THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 128(2) and Article 140(2) thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2014/509/EU of 23 July 2014 on the adoption by Lithuania of the euro on 1 January 2015 (1), and in particular Article 1 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The European Central Bank (ECB) has the exclusive right since 1 January 1999 to approve the volume of coins issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro.












(2)


The derogation in favour of Lithuania referred to in Article 4 of the 2003 Act of Accession has been abrogated with effect from 1 January 2015.












(3)


The 18 Member States whose currency is the euro and Lithuania have submitted to the ECB for approval their estimates of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2015, supplemented by explanatory notes on the forecasting methodology.












(4)


As the right of Member States to issue euro coins is subject to approval by the ECB of the volume of the issue, the volumes approved by the ECB may not be surpassed by the Member States without prior approval by the ECB,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1

Approval of the volume of euro coins to be issued in 2015

The ECB hereby approves the volume of euro coins to be issued by the Member States whose currency is the euro in 2015 as set out in the following table:






(million EUR)




 


Issuance of coins intended for circulation and issuance of collector coins (not intended for circulation) in 2015




Belgium


0,8




Germany


529,0




Estonia


10,3




Ireland


39,0




Greece


13,3




Spain


301,4




France


230,0




Italy


41,5




Cyprus


10,0




Lithuania


120,7




Luxembourg


45,0




Malta


8,7




Netherlands


52,5




Latvia


30,6




Austria


248,0




Portugal


30,0




Slovenia


13,0




Slovakia


13,4




Finland


60,0






Article 2

Taking effect

This Decision shall take effect on the day of its notification to the addressees.


Article 3

Addressees

This Decision is addressed to the Member States whose currency is the euro and Lithuania.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 11 December 2014.


The President of the ECB

Mario DRAGHI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 228, 31.7.2014, p. 29.
Case T-12/13: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community trade mark ARTI — Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Identical or highly similar goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2015034EN.01003401.xml










2.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/34





Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden v OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)
(Case T-12/13) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community trade mark ARTI - Earlier Benelux word mark ARTITUDE and international registration of the earlier Benelux trade mark ARTITUDE - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Identical or highly similar goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2015/C 034/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB (Märsta, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV (Arnhem, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2012 (Case R 2085/2011-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Akzo Nobel Coatings International B V and Sherwin-Williams Sweden Group AB.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)


Dismisses the action.










2)


Orders Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.
Case C-572/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2014  — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others
Date: 2014-12-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, conflict of jurisdiction, copyright, indemnification, information society, recording medium








C_2015081EN.01000502.xml










9.3.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 81/5





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 December 2014 — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH v Amazon EU Sàrl and Others
(Case C-572/14)
(2015/C 081/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte Gesellschaft mbH

Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

Question referred

Does a claim for payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) which, in accordance with Austrian law, is directed against undertakings that are first to place recording material on the domestic market on a commercial basis and for consideration constitute a claim arising from ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2)?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.