do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-264/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, medical device, medicine, paints and varnishes, provision of services, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law, veterinary medicine








C_2019206EN.01009401.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/94






Action brought on 18 April 2019 — nanoPET Pharma v EUIPO — Miltenyi Biotec (viscover)
(Case T-264/19)
(2019/C 206/83)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: nanoPET Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miltenyi Biotec GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark ‘viscover’ — EU trade mark No 9 197 732

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 in Case R 1288/2017-5

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 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 60(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-323/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 18 April 2019 — Interplastics s.r.o. v Letifico d.o.o.
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Croatia, claim, discrimination on the basis of nationality, enforcement of ruling, notary, official document








C_2019263EN.01002901.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 18 April 2019 — Interplastics s.r.o. v Letifico d.o.o.
(Case C-323/19)
(2019/C 263/34)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Trgovački sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Interplastics s.r.o.

Defendant: Letifico d.o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Is a provision of national law, namely Article 1 of the Ovršni zakon (Law on enforcement) (published in the Narodne novine Nos 112/12, 25/13, 93/14, 55/16 and 73/17), which gives notaries the power to enforce the recovery of debts based on an authentic document by issuing a writ of execution, as an enforcement order, without the express agreement of the debtor who is a legal person established in the Republic of Croatia, compatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in the light of the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cases C-484/15 and C-551/15?










2.


Can the interpretation given in the judgments of the Court of Justice of 9 March 2017, Zulfikarpašić (C-484/15, EU:C:2017:199), and Pula Parking (C-551/15, EU:C:2017:193), be applied to Case Povrv-752/19, described above, and, specifically, is Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, in which the parties seeking enforcement are legal persons established in other EU Member States, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation?
Case C-321/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2019 — BY and CZ v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: operating cost, road network, toll








C_2019220EN.01002001.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2019 — BY and CZ v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-321/19)
(2019/C 220/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BY, CZ

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Can an individual toll-payer rely, before national courts, on compliance with the provisions regarding the calculation of the toll under Article 7(9) and Article 7a(1) and (2) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC (1) (regardless of the arrangements in Article 7a(3) in conjunction with Annex III thereto), if, in the statutory determination of tolls, the Member State did not fully comply with those provisions or incorrectly implemented them to the detriment of the toll-payer?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Can traffic police costs also be treated as costs of operating the infrastructure network within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC?










(b)


Does an overrun of the infrastructure costs which can be taken into account in the weighted average toll in the range of






(aa)


up to 3.8%, in particular when account is taken of costs which cannot in principle be taken into account,










(bb)


up to 6 %
lead to a breach of the cost overrun prohibition under Article 7(9) of Directive 1999/62/EC as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC, with the result that national law is, to that extent, not applicable?


















3.


If Question 2(b) is to be answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of 26 September 2000 (C-205/98, (2) paragraph 138) to be understood as meaning that a substantial cost overrun can ultimately no longer be offset by an ex post calculation of costs filed in judicial proceedings, which is intended to prove that the fixed toll rate ultimately does not actually exceed the costs which can be taken into account?










(b)


If Question 3(a) is to be answered in the negative:
Is an ex post calculation of costs after the end of the calculation period to be based entirely on the actual costs and the actual toll revenue, that is to say, not on the assumptions made in this regard in the original predictive calculation?










(1)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 8.

(2)  OJ 2000 C 335, p. 10.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 April 2019 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Criminal Justice Cooperation between Eurojust and the Kingdom of Denmark (07770/2019 — C8-0152/2019 — 2019/0805(CNS))
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Denmark, Eurojust, cooperation agreement (EU), judicial cooperation, ratification of an agreement








C_2021158EN.01096301.xml










30.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/963






P8_TA(2019)0425
Eurojust-Denmark Agreement on Criminal Justice Cooperation *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 April 2019 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Criminal Justice Cooperation between Eurojust and the Kingdom of Denmark (07770/2019 — C8-0152/2019 — 2019/0805(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2021/C 158/69)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the Council draft (07770/2019),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0152/2019),










—


having regard to Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime (1), and in particular Article 26a(2) thereof,










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0192/2019),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












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 and the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1.
Case T-255/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01008901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/89






Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)
(Case T-255/19)
(2019/C 187/96)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Aichstetten, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark BIOTON — Application for registration No 17 746 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1887/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark application BIOTON to proceed to registration in respect of all the goods applied for;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO with the direction to alter the contested decision and register EU trade mark No 17 746 009 BIOTON;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-261/19: Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)
Date: 2019-04-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, medical device, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019206EN.01009301.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/93






Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Optima Naturals (OptiMar)
(Case T-261/19)
(2019/C 206/81)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optima Naturals Srl (Gallarate, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU trade mark OptiMar — EU trade mark No 15 176 258

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 January 2019 in Case R 1348/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.