do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-2/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 January 2018 — A group of Members of the Seimas
Date: 2018-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU agricultural market, common organisation of markets, purchase price, raw milk, restriction on competition








C_2018104EN.01001901.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/19





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 2 January 2018 — A group of Members of the Seimas
(Case C-2/18)
(2018/C 104/24)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A group of Members of the Seimas (Lithuanian Parliament)

Other party: the Lithuanian Parliament

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 148(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of strengthening the negotiating powers of raw milk producers and preventing unfair commercial practices, and taking into account certain particular structural features of the milk and milk products sector of the Member State and changes in the market for milk, it does not prohibit the establishment of a national legal regulatory framework which restricts the freedom of contracting parties to negotiate the purchase price of raw milk in the sense that a raw milk buyer is prohibited from paying different raw milk prices to raw milk sellers from the same group, grouped according to the volume of milk sold, who do not belong to a recognised milk producers’ organisation, for raw milk of the same quality and composition as that delivered to the buyer via the same method, and, thus, the parties are unable to agree on a different raw milk purchase price by taking into account any other factors?










2.


Can Article 148(4) of Regulation No 1308/2013 be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of strengthening the negotiating powers of raw milk producers and preventing unfair commercial practices, and taking into account certain particular structural features of the milk and milk products sector of the Member State and changes in the market for milk, it does not prohibit the establishment of a national legal regulatory framework which restricts the freedom of contracting parties to negotiate the purchase price of raw milk in the sense that a raw milk buyer is prohibited from unjustifiably reducing the purchase price of the raw milk, and a reduction of the price by more than 3 % is possible only if a State-empowered institution recognises such a reduction as being justified?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671).
Case C-1/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 2 January 2018 — SIA Oriola Rīga v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2018-01-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs valuation, import (EU), medicine








C_2018104EN.01001801.xml










19.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 2 January 2018 — SIA Oriola Rīga v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-1/18)
(2018/C 104/23)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA Oriola Rīga

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Where the imported goods are medicines, when the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Article 151(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, must it be considered that similar goods are those medicines whose active ingredient and the quantity thereof are the same (or similar) or, rather, in order to identify similar goods, must account be taken of market position as well, that is to say, the popularity and demand, of the imported medicine in question and of its producer?










2.


When the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may the period of 90 days fixed in Article 152(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code be applied flexibly?










3.


If that period may be applied flexibly, must priority be given to data on transactions effected closer to the time when the goods to be valued were imported and involving identical or similar goods that are sold in sufficient quantities to enable the unit price to be determined or, on the contrary, to transactions less close in time but actually involving the imported goods?










4.


When the customs value of the imported goods is determined in accordance with Article 30(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, have the discounts granted, which determined the price at which the goods were in fact sold, to be applied?






(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).
Case T-6/18: Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)
Date: 2018-01-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, catering industry, furniture industry, glass, household article, packaging product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018072EN.01004601.xml










26.2.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/46





Action brought on 2 January 2018 — Hamburg Beer Company v EUIPO (Hamburg Beer Company)
(Case T-6/18)
(2018/C 072/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hamburg Beer Company GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and M. Alber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Hamburg Beer Company’ — Application for registration No 15 272 784

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO 29 September 2017 in Case R 437/2017-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.