do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-293/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law, marketing, production aid, professional association, research and development, restriction on competition, social-security contribution, technical cooperation








C_2009244EN.01000901.xml










10.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/9





Action brought on 29 July 2009 — CNIEL v Commission
(Case T-293/09)
2009/C 244/14
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Économie Laitière (CNIEL) (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Cabanes and V. Kostrzewski-Pugnat, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought







—


annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 10 December 2008 in Case N 561/2008 — France (Actions by interprofessional organisations);










—


in the alternative, order the Commission to institute the formal procedure to review the aid laid down in Article 88(2) EC;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final (1) of 10 December 2008, by which the Commission held that the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the French agricultural interprofessional organisations, consisting of aid for technical assistance, for production and marketing of high-quality agricultural products, for research and development and for advertising in favour of primary producers and undertakings active in the processing and marketing of agricultural products, financed by voluntary levies made compulsory by interministerial order (‘CVLs’) taken from the members of those interprofessional organisations constitutes State aid compatible with the common market.
In support of its action, the applicant advances three pleas in law, alleging:






—


manifest error of assessment in breach of Article 87(1) EC, since CVLs do not constitute State resources and since the measures adopted cannot be attributed to the State and do not give rise to any advantage for the final beneficiaries;










—


breach of the duty to state reasons, since the Commission has not indicated its reasons for finding that the CVLs constitute State resources or how trade between Member States is affected or competition distorted;










—


breach of Article 88(3) EC in that the Commission failed to institute the formal review procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC despite the existence of serious difficulties in assessing the nature of the framework system at issue.






(1)  OJ 2009 C 116, p. 14.
Information on the intended closure of complaint No 2003/4297
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, access to information, commercial contract, complaint to the Commission, consumer protection, disclosure of information, national implementing measure, real estate credit








C_2009176EN.01001601.xml










29.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/16





Information on the intended closure of complaint No 2003/4297
2009/C 176/06






1.


By way of publication in the Official Journal C 268 of 7 November 2003, p. 28, the European Commission acknowledged receipt of complaint No 2003/4297, of which the Commission received more than 100 identical copies sent by different complainants. Complaint No 2003/4297 concerns the transposition in Germany of Directive 85/577/EEC to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, particularly in the area of secured credit agreements.










2.


The Commission's services intend to propose to the Commission to close this complaint at one of its forthcoming meetings.










3.


Should the complainants have further information proving an infringement of Community law, they may communicate this to the Commission within four weeks from the date of publication of this announcement.










4.


Further details can be found on the Internet at the following address:
http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/gen_rights_en.htm#doorstep
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2009176EN.01000401.xml










29.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/4





Euro exchange rates (1)

28 July 2009
2009/C 176/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,4229




JPY


Japanese yen


134,53




DKK


Danish krone


7,4453




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86220




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5850




CHF


Swiss franc


1,5224




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,7660




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,501




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


267,55




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7012




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1765




RON


Romanian leu


4,2050




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0992




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7138




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5378




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


11,0287




NZD


New Zealand dollar


2,1531




SGD


Singapore dollar


2,0497




KRW


South Korean won


1 762,97




ZAR


South African rand


11,1131




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,7197




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3330




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 121,19




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9937




PHP


Philippine peso


68,334




RUB


Russian rouble


43,8914




THB


Thai baht


48,300




BRL


Brazilian real


2,6697




MXN


Mexican peso


18,8641




INR


Indian rupee


68,6050






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-424/08: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 29 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dangerous substance, health risk, summary procedure








C_2009282EN.01003202.xml










21.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 282/32





Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 29 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-424/08) (1)

2009/C 282/56

Language of the case: German

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case T-299/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring v OHIM (combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey)
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009256EN.01002703.xml










24.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/27





Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring v OHIM (combination of the colours broom yellow and silver grey)
(Case T-299/09)
2009/C 256/51
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;










—


Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 21 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 581;










—


Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 581 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);
in the alternative,










—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1330/2008-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: a mark made up of a combination of the colours of broom yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 (registration application No. 6 703 581)

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character. In addition, infringement of procedural law, in particular of Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
Case T-300/09: Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring OHG v OHIM (combination of the colours ochre yellow and silver grey)
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2009256EN.01002801.xml










24.10.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 256/28





Action brought on 29 July 2009 — Gühring OHG v OHIM (combination of the colours ochre yellow and silver grey)
(Case T-300/09)
2009/C 256/52
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Gühring OHG (Albstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1329/2008-1;










—


Annul the decision of the defendant’s Examination Division dated 22 July 2008, in which it refused registration of the applicant’s mark Nr. 6 703 565;










—


Declare, that the trade mark applied for No. 6 703 565 complies with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1);
in the alternative,










—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30. April 2009 in Case R 1329/2008-1;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: a mark made up of the combination of the colours of ochre yellow and silver grey for goods in Class 7 (registration application No. 6 703 565)

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 because the trade mark applied for has a distinctive character. In addition, infringement of procedural law, in particular of Articles 75 and 76 (1) of Regulation No 207/2009


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)
Case C-298/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2009 — RANI Slovakia s.r.o. v Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, interpretation of the law, labour law, labour mobility, provision of services, temporary employment








C_2009267EN.01003201.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma (Hungary) lodged on 29 July 2009 — RANI Slovakia s.r.o. v Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.
(Case C-298/09)
2009/C 267/58
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Bíróság Gazdasági Kollégiuma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RANI Slovakia s.r.o.

Defendant: Hankook Tire Magyarország Kft.

Questions referred







1.


In view of Articles 3(c) and 59 of the Treaty of Rome, can the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 96/71/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the activity of temporary employment undertakings, the national law of a Member State may freely establish the requirements to be imposed on employers (undertakings) for the taking up and pursuit of such an activity in the territory of the Member State concerned and, in that regard, restrict the recognition of temporary employment undertakings to those undertakings established in its territory?










2.


Can Article 1(4) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council be interpreted as meaning that, in relation to the authorisation to undertake their activity, undertakings established in the Member State in question may be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in another Member State?










3.


Can Articles 59, 62 and 63 of the Treaty of Rome, read together, be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions in place at the time of accession to the European Union may remain applicable, without being contrary to Community law, until the Council adopts a program laying down the conditions for the liberalisation of that type of service or the directives required for the implementation of that program?










4.


If the above questions are answered in the negative, is there any reason in the general interest justifying the restriction that the activity of temporary employment undertakings can be carried out only by undertakings which are established and registered in the Member State in question and thus making it possible to regard that restriction as being compatible with Articles 59 and 65 of the Treaty of Rome?






(1)  OJ 1997 L l8, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5585 — Centrica/Venture Production) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: North Sea, crude oil, economic concentration, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, exchange of information, extraction of oil, merger control, natural gas








C_2009176EN.01003201.xml










29.7.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 176/32





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5585 — Centrica/Venture Production)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2009/C 176/08






1.


On 22 July 2009, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Centrica Resources Limited (UK) controlled by Centrica plc (‘Centrica’, UK) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Venture Production plc (‘Venture’, UK) by way of public bid announced on 10 July 2009.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Centrica: a vertically integrated energy company, active mainly in production and supply of natural gas,










—


for Venture: exploration and production of natural gas and crude oil, mainly in the North Sea.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.










4.


The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301 or 22967244) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5585 — Centrica/Venture Production, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




J-70




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË










(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-296/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 29 July 2009 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v M. Baesen
Date: 2009-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil servant, interpretation of the law, public service, social legislation, social security, work contract, worker (EU)








C_2009267EN.01003104.xml










7.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/31





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 29 July 2009 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v M. Baesen
(Case C-296/09)
2009/C 267/57
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Defendant: M. Baesen

Questions referred







1.


For the purpose of Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, (1) should the expression ‘civil servants and persons treated as such’ be interpreted on the basis of the national social security scheme to which the person concerned is affiliated?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, should a person who is employed under a contract of employment by an employer in the public sector and who is subject, under the national scheme, to the social security scheme for employed persons in respect of some of the branches of social security referred to in Article 4(1) of the Regulation and to a special scheme for civil servants in respect of the branches of social security referred to in Article 4(1)(e) of the Regulation be regarded as a person treated as a civil servant within the meaning of Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71?






(1)  Council Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).