Prikaz vseh zadetkov portala ZDSS.....
CELEX:62020TJ0467: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 1 December 2021.#Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark ZARA – Earlier international word mark LE DELIZIE ZARA and earlier national figurative mark ZARA – Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks – Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001).#Case T-467/20.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
CELEX:62021TJ0194: Judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021.#Fidia farmaceutici SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International figurative registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark HYALOSTEL ONE – Earlier EU word mark HYALISTIL and earlier figurative mark HyalOne – Earlier international word mark HYALO – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-194/21.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
CELEX:62019TJ0852: Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2021.#Albéa Services v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – International registration designating the European Union – Figurative mark ALBÉA – Earlier international registration designating the European Union – Word mark Balea – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Distinctiveness of the earlier international registration designating the European Union – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).#Case T-852/19.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
CELEX:62020CJ0238: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 January 2022.#SIA „Sātiņi-S” v Dabas aizsardzības pārvalde.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 17 – Right to property – Directive 2009/147/EC – Compensation for the damage caused to aquaculture by protected wild birds in a Natura 2000 area – Compensation less than the damage actually suffered – Article 107(1) TFEU – State aid – Concept of ‘advantage’ – Conditions – Regulation (EU) No 717/2014 – De minimis rule.#Case C-238/20.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
CELEX:62020CJ0234: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 January 2022.#SIA „Sātiņi-S” v Lauku atbalsta dienests.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts).#Reference for a preliminary ruling – European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) – Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 – Support for rural development – Article 30(6)(a) – Natura 2000 payments – Compensation for income foregone in agricultural and forest areas – Peat bogs – Prohibition of establishing plantations of cranberries – No compensation for damage – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 17 – Right to property.#Case C-234/20.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
CELEX:62020CJ0347: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 January 2022.#SIA „ Zinātnes parks” v Finanšu ministrija.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Structural Funds – European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) – Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 – Co-financing programme – State aid – Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 – Scope – Limits – Concepts of ‘subscribed share capital’ and ‘undertaking in difficulty’ – Exclusion of undertakings in difficulty from ERDF support – Conditions for the taking effect of an increase of the subscribed share capital – Date of submission of evidence of that increase – Principles of non-discrimination and transparency.#Case C-347/20.
January 28, 2022
No Comments
VSRS Sklep X Ips 60/2021
January 28, 2022
No Comments
Nesubstanciranost dokaznega predloga za zaslišanje sama po sebi ni upravičen razlog za neizvedbo dokaza pred sodiščem, saj je sodišče v okviru materialnega procesnega vodstva dolžno stranko opozoriti, če po njegovi oceni ni predložila ali (ustrezno) predlagala (ustreznih) dokazov.
Na seji se lahko nadzor Upravnega sodišča nad pravilnostjo dokazne ocene upravnega organa omeji izključno na preizkus procesnih kršitev v zvezi z obrazložitvijo odločbe upravnega organa (njen obstoj, razumljivost, konsistentnost, logičnost, nearbitrarnost ipd.), vsebinska presoja pravilnosti obrazložitve glede ugotovljenega dejanskega stanja in vpogled v (listinske) dokaze pa terja izvedbo glavne obravnave, ki je na splošno namenjena zagotavljanju splošne pravice strank do izjavljanja in enakega obravnavanja (22. člen Ustave).
- Blog o davkih – članki(42)
- CFE novice(14)
- Državni zbor RS – zakoni(2351)
- EUR LEX – RSS(16947)
- FURS novice fizične osebe – RSS(9954)
- Izjave ZDSS za javnost(15)
- Izobraževanja in izobraževalni dogodki ZDSS(52)
- Novice DFP(29)
- Novice in stališča ZDSS-ja (izjave za javnost, strokovna stališča)(60)
- Novice RSS FURS podjetja(17123)
- Novice sodbe slovenskih sodišč DAVKI RSS(1011)
- Novice ZDSS – razpisi in druge koristne informacije(12)
- Novice ZDSS (Dogodki, obvestila…) – vsa lastna obvestila ZDSS(128)
- Obvestila ZDSS – delovanje organov ZDSS(18)
- Strokovna mnenja ZDSS(6)
- ZDSS v drugih medijih(4)
Želite prejemati novice o davkih ?
Naroči se na novice ZDSS (informacije iz sodišč, FURS, ZDSS….). Novice boste prejemali 3 x tedensko