{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-002726",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [],
    "case_administrator": null,
    "complainant": [],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Factual Background\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is FAUSTO LIMITED and the contested domain names are the following: animebabe.eu, asiangirls.eu, gaydating.eu, teenpic.eu, teenporn.eu.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant challenges EURID’s decision the abovementioned domain names on hold and requests the following:\r\n\r\n1. That the Panel require EURid to produce and provide to Complainant copies of all documents and other items used, referred to or relied upon in connection with EURid’s decision. This information should include the following:\r\n\r\n(a) documents received by EURid from, or communicated to EURid by, any person in connection with the Domain Names or its registration; and\r\n(b) documents which were used, referred to or relied upon in connection with EURid’s decision, including documents generated or reviewed by or on behalf of EURid (whether internal records of EURid or records held by any person or entity providing services to or on behalf of EURid);\r\n\r\n2. That Complainant be given the opportunity to provide a Rejoinder to any Response by EURid. A rejoinder is justified for the reason that Complainant remains uncertain as to the basis of EURid’s decision and Complainant has been precluded from viewing the documentation providing the basis for EURid’s suspension of the Domain Names; and\r\n\r\n3. That EURid's decision to place the Domain Names on hold be annulled.\r\n\r\nThe Complaint was filed on 8 August 2006 in English, which is the official language of the proceedings. The Response was filed 19 October 2006 within the given deadline. On 20 October 2006, the Provider appointed a three member panel and on the same day the Provider received their Statements of Acceptance and Declarations of Impartiality and Independence. Finally, on 24 October 2006, the case file was transmitted to the ADR Panel.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "Court proceeding in the Court of First Instance of Brussels",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Complainant’s application is made pursuant to article 22(1)(b) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, which provides that an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where a decision taken by the Registry conflicts with EC Regulation 733\/2002. Pursuant to article 22(11) of EC Regulation 874\/2004, the sole purpose of these proceedings is accordingly to determine whether the decision taken by the Respondent was in accordance with EC Regulation 874\/2004 and EC Regulation 733\/2002.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that Respondent’s decision to place the domain names on hold or ‘blocked’ is illegal and requests:\r\ni.\tthe annulation of the Respondent's decision to block the Blocked Domain Names; \r\nii.\tthe provision by the Respondent of copies of all documents used, referred to or relied upon in connection with the Respondent's decision to block the Blocked Domain Names; and \r\niii.\tto be given the opportunity to provide a rejoinder to the Respondent's response.\r\n \r\nThe Respondent agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent's decision of 20 July 2006 should be annulled, so that the Disputed Domain Names can be released immediately upon the termination of this ADR proceeding.\r\n\r\nBased on those assertions, the Panel concludes the following:\r\n\r\n1.\tThe annulment of Respondent’s decision relative to the domain names\r\n\r\nPursuant to Article 22(6) of the Commission Regulation No. 874\/2004 and article 9(3) of the Terms and Conditions, the Respondent has the obligation to block any domain names subject to an ADR procedure.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant initiated an ADR proceeding regarding the disputed domain names on 8th August 2006\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not have the power to unblock the Complainant’s disputed domain names until the ADR proceeding initiated by the Complainant was terminated. That is why the disputed domain names are still blocked.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent agrees to release the domain names from the ‘blocked’ status once this ADR proceeding is terminated and agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s decision should be annulled.\r\n\r\nFor all the foregoing reasons, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent’s decision should be annulled, and such an action does not conflict with the Court’s decision.\r\n\r\n2.\tThe Complainant’s request to obtain production of documentation relied upon in making its decision relative to domain names.\r\n\r\nPursuant to article 1(17)(i) of .eu ADR Rules: “In case of an ADR Proceeding against the Registry any request of a Complainant for documentation or other information related to the Registry decision challenged in the ADR proceeding must be made directly to the Registry in accordance with the Registration Policy”\r\n\r\nHence the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant must make its request directly to the Respondent if he wants to obtain production of documentation relied upon.\r\n\r\n3.\tThe permission to file a rejoinder to the Respondent’s reply.\r\n\r\nSince, the Respondent agrees that the domain names should be released from the ‘blocked’ status upon termination of this ADR proceeding, then no rejoinder seems necessary in the present case.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the EURID's decision be annulled and the domain names ANIMEBABE, ASIANGIRLS, GAYDATING, TEENPIC, TEENPORN be transferred to the Complainant.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2006-10-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "1.\tThe annulment of Respondent’s decision relative to the domain names\r\nThe Respondent agrees to release the domain names from the ‘blocked’ status once this ADR proceeding is terminated and agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s decision should be annulled.\r\n2.\tThe Complainant’s request to obtain production of documentation relied upon in making its decision relative to domain names.\r\nThe Complainant must make its request directly to the Respondent if he wants to obtain production of documentation relied upon.\r\n\r\n3.\tThe permission to file a rejoinder to the Respondent’s reply.\r\nNo rejoinder seems necessary in the present case.",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}