do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Council Decision 2009/908/EU of 1 December 2009 laying down measures for the implementation of the European Council Decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, and on the chairmanship of preparatory bodies of the Council ( OJ L 322, 9.12.2009 )
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU Member State, Presidency of the Council of the EU, administrative structures








L_2009344EN.01005601.xml










23.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 344/56







Corrigendum to Council Decision 2009/908/EU of 1 December 2009 laying down measures for the implementation of the European Council Decision on the exercise of the Presidency of the Council, and on the chairmanship of preparatory bodies of the Council
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 322 of 9 December 2009
)

On page 30 in Annex I, the table shall be replaced by the following:








‘Germany


January-June


2007




Portugal


July-December




Slovenia


January-June


2008




France


July-December




Czech Republic


January-June


2009




Sweden


July-December




Spain


January-June


2010




Belgium


July-December




Hungary


January-June


2011




Poland


July-December




Denmark


January-June


2012




Cyprus


July-December




Ireland


January-June


2013




Lithuania


July-December




Greece


January-June


2014




Italy


July-December




Latvia


January-June


2015




Luxembourg


July-December




Netherlands


January-June


2016




Slovakia


July-December




Malta


January-June


2017




United Kingdom


July-December




Estonia


January-June


2018




Bulgaria


July-December




Austria


January-June


2019




Romania


July-December




Finland


January-June


2020’
Publication of a cancellation request pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, beer, designation of origin, location of production, product designation








C_2009315EN.01002601.xml










23.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/26





Publication of a cancellation request pursuant to Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
2009/C 315/10
This publication confers the right to object to the cancellation request pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006. Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months of the date of this publication.
CANCELLATION REQUEST

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006


Cancellation request pursuant to Article 12(2)


‘GÖGGINGER BIER’


EC No: DE-PGI-117-1237-27.05.2008


PGI ( X ) PDO ( )

1.   Registered name proposed for cancellation:

‘Gögginger Bier’
2.   Member State or third country:

Germany
3.   Type of product:







Class 2.1.


Beer




4.   Person or body making request for cancellation:








Name


:


Brauerei Ott GmbH & Co. KG




Address


:







Wilhelm-Schussen-Straße 12




88427 Bad Schussenried




DEUTSCHLAND








Nature of legitimate interest in making the request:
The requester is the legal successor to the previous applicant (see below) and user of the geographical indication ‘Gögginger Bier’ and therefore possesses a legitimate interest in this cancellation request.
5.   Reasons for cancellation:

Schussenrieder Bierbrauerei Ott has bought Brauerei Adler, which used to be in the geographical area of Krauchenwies-Göggingen, and has moved production to Bad Schussenried. There are no plans to resume production in Krauchenwies-Göggingen. Schussenrieder Bierbrauerei Ott’s products therefore no longer meet the requirements of the PGI specification for ‘Gögginger Bier’. By letter of 26 September 2007, the Karlsruhe regional government office (Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe), as the competent control authority, confirmed that Brauerei Adler was the only local brewery in the geographical area of Krauchenwies-Göggingen and that it can therefore be assumed that there are no other potential producers likely to be interested in using the protected geographical indication.
Under these circumstances, legitimate interests of third parties in objecting to the cancellation of the protected geographical indication are therefore not apparent.
Notice for the attention of those persons, entities and bodies that have been included by the Council on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 applies (Annex II)
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Guinea, economic sanctions, exchange of information, international affairs, natural person, trade restriction








C_2009315EN.01001001.xml










23.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 315/10





Notice for the attention of those persons, entities and bodies that have been included by the Council on the list of persons, entities and bodies to which Article 6 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 applies (Annex II)
2009/C 315/06
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 of December 2009 (1).
The Council of the European Union has determined that the persons, entities and bodies that appear on the above-mentioned list fulfil the criteria set out in Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1284/2009 imposing certain specific restrictive measures in respect of the Republic of Guinea, and they have consequently been included in Annex II to that Regulation. The Regulation provides for a freezing of all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to the persons, entities or bodies concerned and that no funds, other financial assets and economic resources shall be made available to or for the benefit of such persons, entities or bodies, whether directly or indirectly.
The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III of the Regulation, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Articles 8 and 9 of the Regulation).
The persons, entities or bodies concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered.
Any such requests should be sent to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




Rue de la Loi 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Regulation before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 263(4) and (6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


(1)  OJ L 346, 23.12.2009.
Case T-523/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010051EN.01004401.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/44





Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Smart Technologies v OHIM (WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH)
(Case T-523/09)
2010/C 51/80
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Smart Technologies ULC (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2;










—


In the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 September 2009 in case R 554/2009-2, to state that the Community trade mark concerned possesses sufficient distinctive character that no objection to its registration may be raised under Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘WIR MACHEN DAS BESONDERE EINFACH’ for goods in class 9

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that the Community trade mark concerned was not eligible for registration due to the fact that it is purportedly devoid of any distinctive character.
Case C-403/09 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Provisional measures concerning custody — Decision enforceable in a Member State — Wrongful removal of the child — Other Member State — Other court — Custody of the child granted to the other parent — Jurisdiction — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, matrimonial law, parental responsibility








C_2010063EN.01001601.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/16





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru — Republic of Slovenia) — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia
(Case C-403/09 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Provisional measures concerning custody - Decision enforceable in a Member State - Wrongful removal of the child - Other Member State - Other court - Custody of the child granted to the other parent - Jurisdiction - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
2010/C 63/24
Language of the case: Slovene

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Mariboru

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Jasna Detiček

Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Provisional and protective measures — Jurisdiction of a court in Member State A to rule provisionally on an application to have custody of the child restored, the court dealing with the substance (disposing of the divorce proceedings) being in Member State B

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not allowing, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a court of a Member State to take a provisional measure in matters of parental responsibility granting custody of a child who is in the territory of that Member State to one parent, where a court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction under that regulation as to the substance of the dispute relating to custody of the child, has already delivered a judgment provisionally giving custody of the child to the other parent, and that judgment has been declared enforceable in the territory of the former Member State.


(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.
Case C-549/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, aid system, aquaculture, fishing industry, reimbursement of aid








C_2010080EN.01001101.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/11





Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-549/09)
2010/C 80/18
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and K. Walkerová, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to implement the Commission Decision of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (1) by recovering from the beneficiaries the aid which was declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market in Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, and by failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 4 and 5 of that decision;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has still not taken the measures necessary to recover, ‘without delay’, from the beneficiaries the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market or, in any event, has not communicated those measures to the Commission.
France was to inform the Commission, within a period of two months from notification of the decision, of the measures taken to comply with that decision. However, more than five years have elapsed since the French authorities received that decision and no reimbursement of the aid granted has been made.
The applicant recalls furthermore that, according to settled case-law, the only defence available to a Member State against infringement proceedings brought by the Commission on the basis of Article 108(2) TFEU is to plead that it was absolutely impossible to implement the decision. However, the French authorities have never pleaded exceptional and unforeseeable difficulties rendering implementation of the decision impossible. They have merely indicated that they intended to take the relevant recovery measures jointly with another matter concerning recovery of other incompatible aid.


(1)  Commission Decision 2005/239/EC of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49).
Case C-546/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 December 2009 — Aurubis Balgaria v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), customs union, interest, interpretation of the law, legal code, payment








C_2010080EN.01000901.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven Administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 December 2009 — Aurubis Balgaria v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia
(Case C-546/09)
2010/C 80/16
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven Administrativen Sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Aurubis Balgaria

Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa — Sofia

Questions referred







1.


Are national courts to interpret Article 232(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) as meaning that customs authorities may charge interest on arrears in respect of the amount of additional customs debts only in relation to the period following entry in the accounts, communication to the debtor and expiry of the period laid down by the customs authority pursuant to Article 222(1)(a) of the regulation for payment of the additional customs debts?










2.


Is Article 214(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted, in the absence of corresponding provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92, (2) as meaning that national authorities may not charge compensatory interest in respect of the period between the time of the original customs declaration and the time of the subsequent entry in the accounts?










3.


Are the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 to be interpreted as meaning that, where there are no national legal provisions which provide expressly, in the event of subsequent entry in the accounts, for an increase in the customs duty or another national penalty equal to the amount that would have been charged as interest on arrears in respect of the period between the time at which the customs debt was incurred and the time at which the subsequent entry in the accounts was made, Community law does not permit national courts to effect such an increase or impose such a penalty?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
Case F-105/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Scheefer v Parliament
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: Civil Service Tribunal, European Parliament, action by staff, indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, work contract








C_2010037EN.01005201.xml










13.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/52





Action brought on 23 December 2009 — Scheefer v Parliament
(Case F-105/09)
2010/C 37/82
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Séverine Scheefer (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: R. Adam, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment the decisions of the defendant refusing to convert the applicant’s contract as a temporary agent into a contract for an indefinite period in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 8 of the CEOS. In addition, application for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 February 2009;










—


annul the Parliament’s decision of 12 October 2009;










—


annul the legal characterisation of the original contract and its date of expiry set at 31 March 2009;










—


accordingly, convert the applicant’s contract of engagement into an engagement for an indefinite period;










—


compensate the applicant for the loss she suffered as a result of the Parliament’s conduct;










—


in the alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that, despite the forming of a contract of engagement for an indefinite period, the working relationship has ceased, grant damages and interest for wrongful termination of the contractual relationship;










—


in the further alternative and if, contrary to all probability, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion that no conversion of the contract is possible, grant damages and interest for the loss suffered by the applicant by reason of the European Parliament’s wrongful conduct;










—


reserve to the applicant all other rights, remedies, pleas and actions and, in particular, an order that the Parliament pay damages and interest in connection with the loss suffered;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Case C-551/09: Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
Date: 2009-12-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, bank, control of State aid, disclosure of information, privatisation, reimbursement of aid








C_2010063EN.01003201.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/32





Action brought on 23 December 2009 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-551/09)
2010/C 63/52
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and M. Adam, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought







1.


declare that, by failing to take all necessary measures to recover the aid in issue in Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and under Articles 1 to 3 of that Commission Decision;










2.


declare that, by failing to provide the Commission in good time with the information necessary for calculating the amount of the aid, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 288 TFEU and under Article 4 of Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland;










3.


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission takes the view that the period given to the Republic of Austria in Commission Decision 2008/719/EC of 30 April 2008 on State aid C 56/06 (ex NN 77/2006) implemented by Austria for the privatisation of Bank Burgenland to provide the information required for the purpose of calculating the amount of the aid has expired.
An agreement reached by the Commission and the Republic of Austria after the expiry of the abovementioned period concerning the level of the amount to be recovered was, according to the Commission, revoked by the Republic of Austria on the ground that the company affected by the recovery claim intended, in the event of being obliged to pay, to cancel the purchase of Bank Burgenland. This, according to the Republic of Austria, would have had serious consequences for the economy of the Land of Burgenland. In the view of the Commission, however, this does not provide justification for waiving the demand for repayment.
The judicial challenge to the abovementioned decision likewise does not affect the obligation to give effect to it.