natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag T-308/01 Henkel KGaA / Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (KHIM), LHS (UK) Ltd Intellektuel ejendomsret
In those circumstances, the Commission is not entitled to maintain that it could decline to define its position in this case and that, therefore, no failure to act could, in any event, be attributed to it.
»EF-varemærker —forordning (EF) nr. 40/94 og (EF) nr. 2868/95 — indsigelsessag — reel brug af det ældre varemærke — omfanget af appelkammerets prøvelse — vurdering af beviser fremlagt i sagen for indsigelsesafdelingen* (Anden Afdeling)
On the other hand, the Commission argues correctly that the request to act which was sent to it on 25 May 2001 was, in any event, out of time.
Den 1. april 1996 indgav den anden part i sagen for appelkammeret ved Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (herefter »Harmoniseringskontoret«), dengang benævnt Laporte ESD Ltd, en ansøgning om registrering af et EF-varemærke til Harmoniseringskontoret.
The Community legislature intended to lay down a clear division between the activities of the national authorities and those of the Community authorities, by avoiding successive definitions of positions by those different authorities on the same transaction, and that it wished to ensure scrutiny of concentrations within periods compatible both with the requirements of sound administration and those of commercial life.
Der blev for det første indgivet en varemærkeansøgning for varer i klasse 1 og 3 i Nice-arrangementet.
According to the Court, the actions which the undertakings concerned, be they parties to the transaction or third parties, may take against decisions taken by the Commission are subject to the general condition of the time-limit fixed by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC and must therefore be made within a period of two months.
For det andet blev der ansøgt om registrering af varemærket for visse andre varer i klasse 1 og 5, samt for visse tjenesteydelser i klasse 42 i Nice-arrangementet.
Undertakings could thus lead the Commission to call in question a decision taken by the competent national authorities with regard to a concentration, even after the exhaustion of the possible legal remedies against such decision in the legal system of the Member State concerned.
Den 26. januar 1999 rejste sagsøgeren indsigelse i henhold til artikel 42, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 40/94, med hensyn til de varegrupper, der er nævnt ovenfor i præmis 5.
In this case, the concentration in issue was notified on 5 September 2000 to the Oberlandesgericht Wien, which approved it on 26 January 2001.
Indsigelsen var støttet på et varemærke, der blev registreret i Tyskland den 11. januar 1965.
The appellants were entitled at any time during that period to request the Commission to examine whether the transaction had a Community dimension.
Dette varemærke (herefter »det ældre varemærke«), der består af ordmærket CARCLIN, er registreret for visse varer i klasse 1 og 2 i Nice-arrangementet. Til støtte for indsigelsen påberåbte sagsøgeren sig den relative registreringshindring, der er nævnt i artikel 8, stk. 1, litra b), i forordning nr. 40/94.
On 25 May 2001, the date on which they made a complaint to the Commission, nearly four months had elapsed since the national authorities' decision approving completion of the transaction, that is to say, a period similar to that which is afforded the Commission, under Article 10(3) of the Merger Regulation, to undertake an investigation of a notified transaction, where the formal proceeding provided for that purpose has been initiated.
I henhold til artikel 43, stk. 2, og 3, i forordning nr. 40/94 fremsatte den anden part i sagen for appelkammeret den 24. maj 1999 begæring om, at sagsøgeren skulle godtgøre, at der inden for de seneste fem år forud for offentliggørelsen af EF-varemærkeansøgningen var gjort reel brug af det ældre varemærke i den medlemsstat, hvori det var beskyttet.
In those circumstances, the period of time at the end of which the Commission was seised of a complaint and subsequently called upon to act by the appellants could not, in this case, be regarded as reasonable and it was therefore no longer open to the appellants to bring an action for a declaration of failure to act in that respect.
Ved afgørelse af 12. september 2001 afslog Tredje Appelkammer ved Harmoniseringskontoret (herefter »appelkammeret«) klagen.
Case T-308/01 Henkel KGaA ν Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), LHS (UK) Ltd Intellectual property
Appelkammeret fandt i det væsentlige, at sagsøgeren ikke havde bestridt indsigelsesafdelingens vurdering, hvorefter de af sagsøgeren for indsigelsesafdelingen fremlagte beviser ikke var tilstrækkelige til at godtgøre, at der var blevet gjort reel brug af det ældre varemærke (punkt 12 i den anfægtede afgørelse).
(Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition procedure —Genuine use of earlier mark —Scope of the examination conducted by the Board of Appeal —Assessment of the evidence produced in the procedure before the Opposition Division) (Second Chamber)
Ved stævning udformet på engelsk og indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 10. december 2001 har sagsøgeren anlagt nærværende sag.
On 1 April 1996, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (hereinafter 'the Office'), Laporte EDS Ltd as it then was, filed an application for a Community trade mark at the Office.
Herefter må det første anbringende tages til følge.
The trade mark in respect of which registration was sought was the word mark KLEENCARE.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The goods in respect of which registration was sought are in Classes 1 and 3 of the Nice Agreement.
•1) Afgørelsen, der blev truffet den 12. september 2001 af Tredje Appelkammer ved Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) (sag R 738/2000-3), annulleres.
Registration was also sought in respect of certain other goods in Classes 1 and 5 and certain services in Class 42 of the Nice Agreement.
2) Kontoret for Harmonisering i det Indre Marked (Varemærker og Design) betaler sagens omkostninger.* *
That mark (hereinafter 'the earlier mark') consists of the word mark CARCLIN and is registered in respect of certain goods in Classes 1 and 2 of the Nice
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE
Agreement.
Sag C-233/02 Den Franske Republik / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
In support of its opposition, the applicant relied on the ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(1 )(b) of Regulation No 40/94.
Annullation af den beslutning, hvorved Kommissionen angiveligt har indgået en aftale om »retningslinjerne for regulatorisk samarbejde og åbenhed* med USA — anfægtelig retsakt (aftale på ekspertniveau) — tilsidesættelse af Rådets kompetence (artikel 300 EF) — uforenelighed med den frie udøvelse af Kommissionens eneret til at fremsætte forslag
On 24 May 1999, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal requested that the applicant furnish proof, in accordance with Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94, that during the period of five years preceding the date of publication of the Community trade mark application the earlier mark had been put to genuine use in the Member State in which that earlier mark was protected.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 25. september 2003.
As an annex to a letter of 9 September 1999, received by the Office on 10 September 1999, the applicant sent, first, a declaration entitled 'Eidesstattliche Versicherung' (affirmation in lieu of oath) by Mr Blacha, its industrial manager.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Second, the applicant produced three labels featuring the earlier mark written in stylised bold letters.
Sag C-278/00 Den Hellenske Republik / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Third, it produced five instructions for use, written in German, which refer to various cleaning products for motor vehicles and on which the earlier mark is written in black letters and dated from 24 October 1995 to 25 September 1998.
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning nr. E(2000) 686 endelig udg. af 1. marts 2000, hvori Kommissionen kræver tilbagebetaling af en støtte, der er udbetalt til græske andelsselskaber, herunder en støtte til en reorganisering af andelsmejeriet »AGNO*
By decision of 4 July 2000, the Opposition Division rejected the opposition on the ground that the applicant had not furnished sufficient proof that the earlier mark had been put to genuine use.
Generaladvokat L. A Geelhoed fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
On 7 July 2000, the applicant filed an appeal with the Office.
Sag C-194/01 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Republikken Østrig
By decision of 12 September 2001, the Third Board of Appeal of the Office (hereinafter 'the Board of Appeal') dismissed the appeal.
Traktatbrudssøgsmål — mangelfuld gennemførelse af Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald og af Rådets direktiv 91¡689¡EØF af 12. december 1991 om farligt affald — definitionen i national ret af begrebet »affald* uforenelig med artikel 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991
The Board of Appeal found that the applicant had not contested the Opposition Division's finding that the evidence submitted by the applicant before it was insufficient to establish that the earlier mark had been put to genuine use (paragraph 12 of the contested decision).
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
By application, in English, lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 December 2001, the applicant brought this action.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Consequently, the first plea must be upheld.
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs. '
Præjudiciel — Tribunal d'instance de Vienne —fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 87I102IEØF af 22. december 1986 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse medlemsstaternes love og administrative bestemmelser om forbrugerkredit og Rådets direktiv 90/88/EØF om ændring af direktiv 87/102/EØF pligt tilfomdgående underretning af forbrugeren om vilkårene for forlængelse af en kredit ved skriftlig angivelse af de gældende årlige omkostninger i procent -mulighed eller pligt for de nationale domstole for¡til uden tidsbegrænsning på begæring af forbrugeren eller ex officio at fastslå, at en forbrugerkreditaftale er ugyldig
Direct action —Annulment of the alleged decision wheeby the Commission concluded with the United States an agreement on the 'guidelines in matters of legislative cooperation and transparency' —Challengeable measure (ageement at expert level) —Encroachment on Council competence (Article 300 EC) —Incompatibility with the free exercise of the Commission's sole power to make proposals
Generaladvokat A. Tizzano fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 25 September 2003.
Præjudiciel — Oberster Gerichtshof—fortolkning af artikel 7, stk 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79¡7¡EØF af 19. december 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring — national lovgivning om førtidspension ved arbejdsløshed — kønsdifferentierede pensionsaldre
Annulment of Commission Decision E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000, by which the Commission requires the recovery of aid paid to Greek cooperatives, including aid for reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
Advocate General L. A. Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 25 September 2003.
Forenede sager C-53/02 og C-217/02 Commune de Braine-le-Château og Michel Tillieut m.fl. / Région wallonne
Case C-l 94/01 Commission of the European Communities ν Republic of Austria
Præjudiciel — Conseil dEt at de Belgique -fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 75/442/EØF af 15. juli 1975 om affald, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 — muligheden for at udstede en tilladelse (artikel 9), når der ikke er vedtaget en plan for håndtering af affald, herunder udarbejdet et landkort med præcis angivelse af de steder, der er fastlagt som bortskaffelsesområder (direktivets artikel 4, 5 og 7)
Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —Defective transposition of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Directive 91/689/EEC on dangerous waste -National definition of 'waste ' incompatible with Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442/EEC as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 25. september 2003.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 25 September 2003.
Denne publikation udarbejdes af Domstolens Presse- og Informationsafdeling (L-2925 Luxembourg) med henblik på en hurtig orientering om arbejdet ved Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans.
Case C-237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co. KG ν Ulrike Hofstetter Reference for a preliminary ruling —Bundesgerichtshof—Interpretation of Art. 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.04.1993, p.
Dommene og de fremsatte forslag til afgørelse offentliggøres senere i »Samling af Afgørelser«, som er eneste gyldige udgave.
Advocate General L. A. Geelhoed delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 25 September 2003.
Originalsprog: fransk Redaktionen afsluttet den 25.11.2003 Katalognr.: QD-AC-03-024-DA-C
Advocate General A. Tizzano delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 25 September 2003.
Sag C-239/01 Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Landbrug
Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities Agriculture
Sag C-93/02 Ρ Biret International SA / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Landbrug
Case C-94/02
Sag C-94/02 Etablissements Biret et Cie SA / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Landbrug
Établissements Biret et Cie SA v Council of the European Union Agriculture
Sag C-301/96 Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Statsstøtte
Case C-301/96 Federal Republic of Germany ν Commission of the European Communities State aid
Sag C-224/01 Gerhard Kobler / Republikken Østrig Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-224/01 Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich Freedom of movement for persons
Sag C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek / Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-47/02 Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepublik Deutschland Freedom of movement for persons
Sag T-243/01 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Den fælles toldtarif
Case T-243/01 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd ν Commission of the European Communities Common Customs Tariff
Sag T-26/01 Fiocchi munizioni SpA / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Statsstøtte
Case T-26/01 Fiocchi munizioni SpA ν Commission of the European Communities State aid
Sag T-296/01 Antonio Tatti / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-296/01 Antonio Tatti ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-302/02 Michael Kenny / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-302/02 Michael Kenny ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag T-17/01 Georgios Rounis / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-17/01 Georgios Rounis ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Sag C-239/01 Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Landbrug
Case C-239/01 Federal Republic of Germany ν Commission of the European Communities Agriculture
»Landbrug — EUGFL — delvis ophævelse af forordning (EF) nr. 690/2001 - særlige markedsstøtteforanstaltningerfor oksekød — Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning om medlemsstaternes obligatoriske medfinansiering* (Domstolens plenum)
(Agriculture - EAGGF - Partial annulment of Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 - Special market support measures in the beef sector — Implementing regulation of the Commission providing for compulsory co-financing by the Member States)
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 14. juni 2001 har Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland nedlagt påstand om annullation af artikel 5, stk. 5, i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 690/2001 af 3. april 2001, for så vidt som denne bestemmelse pålægger den pågældende medlemsstat at finansiere 30% af prisen af kød, der opkøbes i henhold til forordningen.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 June 2001, the Federal Republic of Germany brought an action for annulment of Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001, in so far as that provision requires each Member State concerned to finance 30% of the price of the meat purchased under that regulation.
Den tyske regering har gjort gældende, at forordning nr. 1254/1999, som er hjemmel for den anfægtede forordning, ikke indeholder nogen bestemmelse, som bemyndiger Kommissionen til i en gennemførelsesforanstaltning til forordningen at indføre en obligatorisk medfinansiering for medlemsstaterne som den, der er indført i den omstridte bestemmelse.
The German Government submits that Regulation No 1254/1999, which is the legal basis of the contested regulation, does not contain any provision authorising the Commission to introduce, in a measure implementing that regulation, compulsory co-financing by the Member States such as that introduced by the disputed measure.
Domstolen bemærker, at det i artikel 1, stk. 2, litra b), i forordning nr. 1258/1999 bestemmes, at EUGFL, Garantisektionen, finansierer interventioner til regulering af landbrugsmarkederne.
The Court finds that Article l(2)(b) of Regulation No 1258/1999 provides that the 'Guarantee' Section of the EAGGF is to finance intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets.
I forordningens artikel 2, stk. 2, præciseres, at de pågældende interventioner er dem, der efter Fællesskabets regler foretages inden for rammerne af de fælles markedsordninger for landbruget.
Article 2(2) of that regulation states that the intervention in question is that undertaken in accordance with Community rules within the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets.
Som anført af Kommissionen, er det korrekt, at selv om artikel 1, stk. 2, litra b), i forordning nr. 1258/1999 indfører fællesskabsfinansiering af interventioner til regulering af landbrugsmarkederne, foreskriver bestemmelsen ikke udtrykkeligt, at denne finansiering er den eneste finansieringsmodel.
It is true, as the Commission submits, that although Article l(2)(b) of Regulation No 1258/1999 establishes Community financing for intervention intended to stabilise the agricultural markets, that provision does not expressly provide that such financing is exclusive in nature.
Andre bestemmelser i grundforordningen gør det imidlertid muligt at fortolke denne bestemmelse således, at støtteforanstaltninger for oksekød udelukkende skal finansieres af EUGFL.
However, other provisions of the basic legislation make it possible to interpret that provision as meaning that market support measures in the beef and veal sector must be exclusively financed by the EAGGF.
Det må derfor fastslås, at Kommissionen i den anfægtede forordning var forpligtet til at overholde reglen i den af Rådet vedtagne grundforordning, hvorefter alle fællesskabsretlige støtteforanstaltninger for oksekød udelukkende skal finansieres af Fællesskabet.
It must therefore be concluded that the Commission was obliged, in the contested regulation, to comply with the rule flowing from the basic legislation adopted by the Council, under which all Community support measures in the beef and veal sector must be exclusively financed by the Community.
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 3. juni 2003.
Advocate General J. Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 3 June 2003.
Sag C-93/02 Ρ Biret International SA / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Landbrug
Case C-93/02 Biret International SA ν Council of the European Union Agriculture
»Appel - direktiv 81/602/EØF, 88/146/EØF og 96/22/EF - forbud mod at anvende visse stoffer med hormonal virkning — forbud mod indførsel fra tredjelande af kød fra dyr på bedrifter, hvor dyrene har været behandlet med disse stoffer — erstatningssøgsmål—den direkte virkning af WTO-aftalen og de hertil knyttede aftaler — aftalen om anvendelsen af sundhedsog plantesundhedsforanstaltninger — henstillinger og afgørelser fra WTO's tvistbilæggelsesorgan* (Domstolens plenum)
(Appeal - Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC - Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from third countries of meat from farm animals to which those substances have been administered — Application for damages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body) (Full Court)
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 16. marts 2002 har selskabet Biret International SA under konkurs, Paris (Frankrig), ved kurator, advokat M. de Thore (herefter »appellanten«) i medfør af artikel 49 i EF-statutten for Domstolen iværksat appel af dom afsagt den 11. januar 2002 af Retten i Første Instans i sagen Biret International mod Rådet (sag T-174/00), hvorved Retten frifandt Rådet for den påstand, som appellanten havde nedlagt i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 178 (nu artikel 235 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 215, stk. 2 (nu artikel 288, stk. 2, EF), om erstatning af det tab, denne hævder at have lidt som følge af forbuddet i Fællesskabet mod indførsel af oksekød fra dyr på bedrifter, hvor dyrene har været behandlet med visse stoffer med hormonal virkning.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 March 2002, Biret International SA, a company in liquidation, established in Paris (France), represented by M. de Thore, liquidator ('the appellant'), brought an appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-174/00 Biret International ν Council [2002] ('the contested judgment'), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed Biret International's action for damages under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for compensation for damage which it had allegedly suffered as a result of the prohibition on the importation into the Community of beef and veal from farm animals to which certain substances with hormonal action had been administered.
Appellantens første anbringende er, principalt, at Retten har tilsidesat traktatens artikel 228, stk. 7.
By its first plea in law, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance, primarily, misconstrued Article 228(7) of the Treaty.
Appellanten har herved anført, at Retten ikke har tilsikret traktatens artikel 228, stk. 7, dens effektive virkning, da den ikke i overensstemmelse med den monistiske opfattelse af Fællesskabets retsorden har løsrevet bestemmelsens anvendelse fra betingelserne om den direkte virkning.
In so doing, the Court of First Instance negated the effectiveness of Article 228(7) of the Treaty, as it failed to separate the application of the provision from any condition relating to its direct effect in accordance with the monist approach to the Community legal order.