Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C:2011:194:TOC

 

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.194.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 194

European flag  

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 54
2 July 2011


Notice No

Contents

page

 

IV   Notices

 

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

 

Court of Justice of the European Union

2011/C 194/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 186, 25.6.2011

1


 

V   Announcements

 

COURT PROCEEDINGS

 

Court of Justice

2011/C 194/02

Case C-147/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg — Germany) — Jürgen Römer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (Equal treatment in employment and occupation — General principles of European Union law — Article 157 TFEU — Directive 2000/78/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘pay’ — Exclusions — Occupational pension scheme in the form of a supplementary retirement pension for former employees of a local authority and their survivors — Method of calculating that pension favouring married recipients over those living in a registered life partnership — Discrimination based on sexual orientation)

2

2011/C 194/03

Joined Cases C-230/09 and C-231/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) — Hauptzollamt Koblenz v Kurt Etling, Thomas Etling (C-230/09), Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (C-231/09) v Theodor Aissen, Hermann Rohaan (Agriculture — Milk and dairy sector — Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 — Levy in the milk and dairy sector — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy — Transfer of individual reference quantities — Repercussions on the calculation of the levy — Repercussions on the calculation of the dairy premium)

3

2011/C 194/04

Case C-391/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto 1 apylinkės teismas (Republic of Lithuania)) — Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn, Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracija, Lietuvos Respublikos teisingumo ministerija, Valstybinė lietuvių kalbos komisija, Vilniaus miesto savivaldybės administracijos Teisės departamento Civilinės metrikacijos skyrius (Citizenship of the Union — Freedom to move and reside in the Member States — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU — Principle of equal treatment of persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin — Directive 2000/43/EC — National rules requiring that the surnames and forenames of natural persons must be entered on certificates of civil status in a form which complies with the rules governing the spelling of the official national language)

4

2011/C 194/05

Case C-543/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Electronic communications — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 25(2) — Directive 2002/58/EC — Article 12 — Provision of directory enquiry services and directories — Obligation placed on an undertaking assigning telephone numbers to pass to other undertakings data in its possession relating to the subscribers of third-party undertakings)

5

2011/C 194/06

Case C-107/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria)) — Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 AD v Direktor ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ NAP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directives 77/388/EEC and 2006/112/EC — Refund — Time-limit — Interest — Set-off — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Protection of legitimate expectations)

5

2011/C 194/07

Case C-144/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany)) — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch (Jurisdiction in civil matters — Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company’s organs — Scope — Action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that a contract is void on account of alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the contract — Lis pendens — Obligation on any court other than the court first seised to stay proceedings — Scope)

6

2011/C 194/08

Joined Cases C-201/10 and C-202/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH (C-201/10), Vion Trading GmbH (C-202/10) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 3 — Recovery of an export refund — 30-year limitation period — Limitation rule forming part of the general civil law of a Member State — Application ‘by analogy’ — Principle of legal certainty — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of proportionality)

7

2011/C 194/09

Case C-294/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Andrejs Eglītis, Edvards Ratnieks v Latvijas Republikas Ekonomikas ministrija (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation of passengers in the event of cancellation of a flight — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation in the event of extraordinary circumstances — Implementation, by the air carrier, of all reasonable measures to avoid extraordinary circumstances — Organisation of resources in good time to be able to ensure the operation of the flight after such circumstances have ended)

7

2011/C 194/10

Case C-479/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 May 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 1999/30/EC — Pollution control — Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

8

2011/C 194/11

Case C-128/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 March 2011 — UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.

8

2011/C 194/12

Case C-165/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky lodged on 4 April 2011 — Daňové riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Profitube spol. s.r.o.

9

2011/C 194/13

Case C-173/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 April 2011 — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (a company registered in Germany), Sportradar (a company registered in Switzerland)

10

2011/C 194/14

Case C-177/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 15 April 2011 — Sillogos Ellinon Poleodomon kai Khorotakton v (1) Ipourgos Perivallontos, Khorotaxias kai Dimosion Ergon, (2) Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, (3) Ipourgos Esoterikon, Dimosias Diikisis kai Apokentrosis

10

2011/C 194/15

Case C-209/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 4 May 2011 — Sportingbet plc v Ipourgos Politismou and Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon

11

 

General Court

2011/C 194/16

Case T-423/07: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Ryanair v Commission (State aid — Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Aviation sector — Exclusive use of Terminal 2 at Munich Airport — Action for failure to act — Adoption of a position by the Commission — No need to adjudicate — Obligation to act — None)

12

2011/C 194/17

Case T-502/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — IIC-Intersport International v OHIM — McKenzie (McKENZIE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative trade mark McKENZIE — Earlier Community figurative and word marks McKINLEY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

12

2011/C 194/18

Case T-207/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica (KIOWA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KIOWA — Earlier Community and national figurative marks COHIBA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

13

2011/C 194/19

Case T-580/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — PJ Hungary v OHIM — Pepekillo (PEPEQUILLO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PEPEQUILLO — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks PEPE and PEPE JEANS — Restitutio in integrum — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Article 78 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

13

2011/C 194/20

Case T-376/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Glenton España v OHIM — Polo/Lauren (POLO SANTA MARIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark POLO SANTA MARIA — Earlier Benelux figurative mark showing the silhouette of a polo player — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2011/C 194/21

Case T-81/10: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2011 — Tempus Vade v OHIM — Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark AIR FORCE — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks TIME FORCE — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

14

2011/C 194/22

Case T-206/11: Action brought on 4 April 2011 — COMPLEX v OHIM — Kajometal (KX)

14

2011/C 194/23

Case T-207/11: Action brought on 8 April 2011 — EyeSense v OHIM — Osypka Medical (ISENSE)

15

2011/C 194/24

Case T-216/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)

15

2011/C 194/25

Case T-219/11: Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

16

2011/C 194/26

Case T-220/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — TeamBank v OHIM — Fercredit Servizi Finanziari (f@ir Credit)

16

2011/C 194/27

Case T-223/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — Siemens v Commission

17

2011/C 194/28

Case T-224/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Caventa AG v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)

17

2011/C 194/29

Case T-225/11: Action brought on 21 April 2011 — Caventa AG v OHIM — Anson’s Herrenhaus (BERG)

18

2011/C 194/30

Case T-227/11: Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)

18

2011/C 194/31

Case T-232/11: Action brought on 4 May 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

19

2011/C 194/32

Case T-243/11: Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Glaxo Group v OHIM — Farmodiética (ADVANCE)

19

2011/C 194/33

Case T-245/11: Action brought on 6 May 2011 — ClientEarth and International Chemical Secretariat v ECHA

20


EN

 

Top