do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-466/09: Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Comercial Losan v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (Mc. Baby)
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, clothing industry, marketing, trade-mark law








C_2010024EN.01006001.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/60





Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Comercial Losan v OHIM — McDonald's International Property (Mc. Baby)
(Case T-466/09)
2010/C 24/106
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Comercial Losan (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: A. Vela Ballesteros, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd (Delaware, United States)

Form of order sought







—


uphold the action brought against the decision of the Board of Appeal of 1 September 2009 — R 1706/2008-1 Mc Baby/Mc Kids in the opposition proceedings No B 1049362 (Community trade mark application 4 441 393), allow registration of the Community trade mark applied for, and order the opposing party to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for a Community trade mark: Comercial Losan

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Mc. Baby’ (registration application No 4 741 393) for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 39

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: McDonald’s International Property Co. Ltd.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘McKids’ (mark No 3 207 354) for goods in classes 16, 25 and 28; Community word mark ‘McDONALD’S’ (mark No 62 497) for goods and services in Classes 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 41 and 42; and Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘McDONALD’S’ (mark No 62 521) for goods and services in Classes 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial upholding of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial upholding of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, replaced by Regulation No 207/2009.
Case C-456/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo n o 3 de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Ana María Iglesias Torres v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Galicia
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, framework agreement, interpretation of the law, interprofessional agreement, national implementing measure, temporary employment, working time








C_2010024EN.01003401.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/34





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo no 3 de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Ana María Iglesias Torres v Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Galicia
(Case C-456/09)
2010/C 24/62
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo No 3 de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ana María Iglesias Torres

Defendant: Consejería de Educación de la Junta de Galicia

Questions referred







1.


Is Directive 1999/70/EC (1) applicable to interim staff of the Autonomous Community of Galicia?










2.


Is it possible to regard Article 25(2) of Law 7/2007 as a national provision transposing Directive 1999/70/EC when there is no reference to Community legislation in that Law?










3.


In the event that the reply to the second question is affirmative: must Article 25(2) EBEP be defined as a national provision transposing the directive, of the kind referred to in point 4 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-268/06 (Impact), (2) or is the Spanish State required to give retroactive effect to remuneration arising from the three-yearly increments which it has recognised in accordance with the Directive?










4.


In the event that the reply to the second question is negative: is it possible to apply Directive 1999/70/EC directly to the case in the terms set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Del Cerro Alonso? (3)







(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).

(2)  Case C-268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I-2483.

(3)  Case C-307/05 Del Cerro Alonso [2007] ECR I-7109.
Decision No 1/2009 of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council of 23 November 2009 on the establishment of a Joint Committee
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: EC–Ukraine Cooperation Council
Subjects: European Union, Ukraine, comitology, cooperation agreement (EU)








L_2010111EN.01003001.xml










4.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 111/30








            DECISION No 1/2009 OF THE EU-UKRAINE COOPERATION COUNCIL
         
of 23 November 2009
         
on the establishment of a Joint Committee
(2010/254/EC)


THE EU-UKRAINE COOPERATION COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and its Member States, and Ukraine, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 88 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 88 of the Agreement gives the Cooperation Council the power to set up any other special committee or body that can assist it in carrying out its duties and shall determine the composition and duties of such committees or bodies and how they shall function.












(2)


The Parties to the Agreement are currently negotiating an Association Agreement, including a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Area.












(3)


The Parties to the Agreement have agreed on the text of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda.












(4)


There is a need for a Committee to review progress in implementing the Association Agenda as well as future priorities and any necessary adjustments. This Joint Committee will function at senior official level,





HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:



Sole Article
The Cooperation Council hereby establishes a Joint Committee at senior official level. The Joint Committee shall review progress in implementing the Association Agenda as well as future priorities and any necessary adjustments to it.
The Joint Committee shall meet regularly, at least once per year.




Done at Brussels, 23 November 2009.


For the Cooperation Council


Head of the EU Delegation

C. BILDT
            

Head of the Ukrainian Delegation

Y. TYMOSHENKO
Recommendation No 1/2009 of the EU-Ukraine Cooperation Council of 23 November 2009 on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: EC–Ukraine Cooperation Council
Subjects: European Union, Ukraine, action programme, cooperation agreement (EU), free-trade area








L_2010111EN.01003101.xml










4.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 111/31








            RECOMMENDATION No 1/2009 OF THE EU-UKRAINE COOPERATION COUNCIL
         
of 23 November 2009
         
on the implementation of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda
(2010/255/EC)


THE EU-UKRAINE COOPERATION COUNCIL,

Having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and its Member States, and Ukraine, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Article 85 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Article 85 of the Agreement gives the Cooperation Council the power to make appropriate recommendations by agreement between the two Parties.












(2)


By the terms of Article 102 of the Agreement, the Parties shall take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement and shall see to it that the objectives set out therein are attained.












(3)


The Parties are currently negotiating an Association Agreement, including a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Area.












(4)


The Parties have agreed on the text of the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda.












(5)


The EU-Ukraine Association Agenda will replace the current EU-Ukraine Action Plan and will prepare for and facilitate the early entry into force of the future EU-Ukraine Association Agreement through the elaboration of and agreement on concrete steps which will provide practical guidance for such preparations and implementation.












(6)


The Association Agenda serves the dual purpose of setting out concrete steps in the preparation of the Association Agreement, and of providing a broader framework for the overall goal of achieving political association and greater economic integration of Ukraine to the European Union.












(7)


The Association Agenda is an operational document, which will be revised as necessary on the basis of progress reviews referred to in Section 3.9 of the Association Agenda and in pursuit of its overall objectives,





HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:



Sole Article
The Cooperation Council recommends that the Parties implement the EU-Ukraine Association Agenda as set out in document UE-UA 1056/2/09 REV 2, insofar as such implementation is directed towards the preparations for and implementation of the future EU-Ukraine Association Agreement.




Done at Brussels, 23 November 2009.


For the Cooperation Council


Head of the EU Delegation

C. BILDT
            

Head of the Ukrainian Delegation

Y. TYMOSHENKO
Case C-457/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Claude Chartry v État belge
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, appeals by private individuals, application of EU law, constitutional court, court of arbitration, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2010037EN.01000302.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 November 2009 — Claude Chartry v État belge
(Case C-457/09)
2010/C 37/05
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Claude Chartry

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

‘Do Article 6 [EU] and Article 234 [EC] preclude national legislation, such as the Law of 12 July 2009 amending Article 26 of the Law [on the Constitutional Court], from requiring the national court to make a reference to the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling, if it finds that a citizen taxpayer has been deprived of the effective judicial protection guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as incorporated into Community law, by another national law, [namely] Article 49 of the Law … of 9 July 2004, without that national court being able to ensure immediately the direct [effect] of Community law [in the] proceedings before it and without being able also to carry out a review of its compliance with the Convention where the Constitutional Court has recognised the compatibility of the national legislation with the fundamental rights guaranteed by Title II of the [Belgian] Constitution?’
Case T-337/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2009 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), software, trade-mark law








C_2010024EN.01006903.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/69





Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2009 — Brilliant Hotelsoftware v OHIM (BRILLIANT)
(Case T-337/07) (1)

2010/C 24/124

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  C 269, 10.11.2007.
Case T-469/09: Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), agricultural expenditure, agro-industry, fruit vegetable, interpretation of the law, public stock, rice








C_2010024EN.01006201.xml










30.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/62





Action brought on 23 November 2009 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
(Case T-469/09)
2010/C 24/109
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S. Papaioannou)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


annul the contested Commission decision in its entirety;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In its action contesting Commission Decision C(2009) 7044 final of 24 September 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2009 L 257, p. 28) in so far as the decision concerns financial corrections to its detriment, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following two pleas for annulment.
By the first plea for annulment, concerning the fruit and vegetable (tomato) processing sector, the applicant pleads incorrect interpretation and application of Article 28(1)(f), Article 28(2), Article 31(1) and (2) and Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 (1) and of the guidelines AGRI VI 5330/97, 17933/2000 and 63983/2002 concerning financial corrections, given that in that sector all the key controls were effected satisfactorily and there were deficiencies only in ancillary secondary controls.
By the second plea for annulment, concerning the public storage of rice, the applicant submits that there is no valid legal basis for imposing the correction, since the Commission misinterpreted Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2148/1996, (2) or in the alternative that the principle of proportionality has been infringed.


(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2148/96 of 8 November 1996 laying down rules for evaluating and monitoring public intervention stocks of agricultural products (OJ 1996 L 288, p. 6).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1123/2009 of 23 November 2009 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2009-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2009308EN.01000101.xml










24.11.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 308/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1123/2009
of 23 November 2009
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) (1),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 24 November 2009.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 November 2009.


For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






(1)  
            OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


AL 


38,6 




MA 


35,0 




MK 


37,7 




TR 


59,5 




ZZ 


42,7 




0707 00 05 


JO 


171,8 




MA 


52,9 




TR 


76,4 




ZZ 


100,4 




0709 90 70 


MA 


50,7 




TR 


119,5 




ZZ 


85,1 




0805 20 10 


MA 


76,0 




ZZ 


76,0 




0805 20 30 , 0805 20 50 , 0805 20 70 , 0805 20 90 


CN 


50,4 




HR 


53,0 




MA 


74,5 




TR 


78,7 




ZZ 


64,2 




0805 50 10 


AR 


58,1 




TR 


68,2 




ZA 


61,6 




ZZ 


62,6 




0808 10 80 


CA 


63,9 




MK 


20,3 




NZ 


102,0 




US 


106,2 




XS 


24,5 




ZA 


87,3 




ZZ 


67,4 




0808 20 50 


CN 


61,9 




TR 


85,0 




ZZ 


73,5 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.