do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-17/09: Judgment of the Court (Forth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Public service contracts — Bio-waste and green waste disposal service — Award without an open public tender procedure)
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, remuneration of work, waste, waste management








C_2010179EN.01000901.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/9






Judgment of the Court (Forth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-17/09) (1)

(Public service contracts - Bio-waste and green waste disposal service - Award without an open public tender procedure)
(2010/C 179/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8 in conjunction with Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — Failure to organise a formal European award procedure before the conclusion of a contract for bio-waste and green waste disposal services between the city of Bonn and a private company

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 and Titles III to VI of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, on the grounds that the municipality of Bonn and the Müllverwertungsanlage Bonn GmbH awarded a public service contract on the disposal of bio-waste and green waste without carrying out a procedure for the award of public works including Europe-wide tendering.










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69 of 21.03.2009
Commission Regulation (EU) No 61/2010 of 21 January 2010 granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, butter, export refund








L_2010017EN.01003201.xml










22.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 17/32








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 61/2010
of 21 January 2010
         
granting no export refund for butter in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


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), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a permanent tender.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the products and destinations referred to in points (a) and (b) of Article 1 and in Article 2 of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 January 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 January 2010.


For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






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

(2)  
            OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Case C-150/09 P: Order of the Court of 21 January 2010 — Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market on condition that its recipient repays earlier aid declared unlawful — Compatibility with Article 87(1) EC — Errors of law — Distortion of the appellants’ arguments — Failure to state grounds — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, appeal, energy industry, liberalisation of the market, redemption, tax exemption








C_2010134EN.01001401.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/14





Order of the Court of 21 January 2010 — Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA v European Commission
(Case C-150/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid declared compatible with the common market on condition that its recipient repays earlier aid declared unlawful - Compatibility with Article 87(1) EC - Errors of law - Distortion of the appellants’ arguments - Failure to state grounds - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
2010/C 134/21
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellants: Iride SpA, Iride Energia SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, Agents)

Re:

APPEAL against the judgment of 11 February 2009 in Case T-25/07 Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA, by which the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 concerning State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62) in the form of subsidies intended to reimburse ‘stranded’ costs incurred in the energy sector, in so far as, first, the conclusion of that decision is that the aid constitutes State aid and/or, secondly, that decision makes payment of the aid subject to the condition that AEM Torino reimburse unlawful aid previously granted under the regime for undertakings known as ‘municipalizzate’ (local administrative bodies)

Operative part of the order

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 153, 04.07.2009.
Case T-309/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW (G Stor) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark G Stor — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks G-STAR and G-STAR RAW DENIM — Relative ground for refusal — Absence of similarity between the marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing, trade-mark law








C_2010063EN.01004602.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/46





Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — G-Star Raw Denim v OHIM — ESGW (G Stor)
(Case T-309/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark G Stor - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks G-STAR and G-STAR RAW DENIM - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of similarity between the marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 63/81
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: G-Star Raw Denim kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ESGW Holdings Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2008 (R 1232/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between G-Star Raw Denim kft and ESGW Holdings Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders G-Star Raw Denim kft to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 58/2010 of 21 January 2010 granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, skimmed milk powder








L_2010017EN.01002701.xml










22.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 17/27








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 58/2010
of 21 January 2010
         
granting no export refund for skimmed milk powder in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 619/2008


THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


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), and in particular Article 164(2), in conjunction with Article 4, thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Regulation (EC) No 619/2008 of 27 June 2008 opening a standing invitation to tender for export refunds concerning certain milk products (2) provides for a standing invitation to tender procedure.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1454/2007 of 10 December 2007 laying down common rules for establishing a tender procedure for fixing export refunds for certain agricultural products (3) and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender, it is appropriate not to grant any refund for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010.












(3)


The Management Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its Chair,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
For the standing invitation to tender opened by Regulation (EC) No 619/2008, for the tendering period ending on 19 January 2010, no export refund shall be granted for the product and destinations referred to in point (c) of Article 1 and in Article 2 respectively of that Regulation.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 22 January 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 January 2010.


For the Commission On behalf of the President,

Jean-Luc DEMARTY
            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development






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

(2)  
            OJ L 168, 28.6.2008, p. 20.

(3)  
            OJ L 325, 11.12.2007, p. 69.
Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections ( OJ C 9, 15.1.2010 )
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Spain, State aid, aid to agriculture, animal welfare, control of State aid, natural disaster








C_2010015EN.01003201.xml










21.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/32





Corrigendum to the authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 9 of 15 January 2010
)

2010/C 15/11
On cover page I, Notice No 2010/C 9/03, delete the footnote reference in the title;
on page 2 of the text, under the title, delete the line ‘(Text with EEA relevance)’.
Case C-34/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2010 — Prof. Dr. Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V.
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: biotechnology, embryo and foetus, interpretation of the law, patent, patent law, stem cell








C_2010100EN.01001901.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/19





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2010 — Prof. Dr. Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V.
(Case C-34/10)
2010/C 100/29
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Prof. Dr. Oliver Brüstle

Defendant: Greenpeace e.V.

Questions referred







1.


What is meant by the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC? (1)







a)


Does it include all stages of the development of human life, beginning with the fertilisation of the ovum, or must further requirements, such as the attainment of a certain stage of development, be satisfied?










b)


Are the following organisms also included:






1.


unfertilised human ova into which a cell nucleus from a mature human cell has been transplanted;










2.


unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis?














c)


Are stem cells obtained from human embryos at the blastocyst stage also included?














2.


What is meant by the expression ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’? Does it include any commercial exploitation within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Directive, especially use for the purposes of scientific research?










3.


Is technical teaching to be considered unpatentable pursuant to Article 6(2)(c) of the Directive even if the use of human embryos does not form part of the technical teaching claimed with the patent, but is a necessary precondition for the application of that teaching,






a)


because the patent concerns a product whose production necessitates the prior destruction of human embryos,










b)


or because the patent concerns a process for which such a product is needed as base material?










(1)  Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13).
Case C-35/10: Action brought on 21 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, mining extraction, national implementing measure, public health, waste management








C_2010080EN.01001701.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/17





Action brought on 21 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-35/10)
2010/C 80/31
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought







—


declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive;










—


order the French Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC lapsed on 30 April 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5699 — Adecco/MPS Group) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: disclosure of information, economic concentration, employment service, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010015EN.01000101.xml










21.1.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/1





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5699 — Adecco/MPS Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 15/01
On 17 December 2009, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32009M5699. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-472/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 18(4) — National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Latvia, VAT, assessment of prices, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, redemption, turnover








C_2010063EN.01001401.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/14





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia)) — Alstom Power Hydro v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-472/08) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 18(4) - National legislation laying down a limitation period of three years for the refund of excess VAT)
2010/C 63/21
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākās tiesas Senāts

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alstom Power Hydro

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation providing for a period of three years for the introduction of applications for the refund of excess tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which lays down a limitation period of three years in which to make an application for the refund of excess value added tax collected by, though not due to, the tax authority.


(1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.
Case C-470/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Netherlands) — K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Expiry of the lease — Obligations of the lessee and the lessor)
Date: 2010-01-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, Netherlands, indemnification, interpretation of the law, municipality, property leasing








C_2010063EN.01001302.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/13





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Netherlands) — K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen
(Case C-470/08) (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Expiry of the lease - Obligations of the lessee and the lessor)
2010/C 63/20
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Arnhem

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: K. van Dijk

Defendant: Gemeente Kampen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1) — Integrated system for the management and supervision of certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Obligations on the lessor and lessee.

Operative part of the judgment

Community law does not require a lessee, on the expiry of the lease, to deliver to the lessor the leased land, including the payment entitlements accumulated thereon or relating thereto, or to pay him compensation.


(1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.