do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-36/10: Action brought on 1 February 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
Date: 2010-02-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, access to EU information, action for annulment (EU)








C_2010100EN.01004801.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/48





Action brought on 1 February 2010 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
(Case T-36/10)
2010/C 100/73
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 in so far as the applicant is thereby refused access to the documents which have not been released;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2009 by which its application for access to the undisclosed documents on the file concerning the LIEN 97-2011 contract was refused in part, and to the Commission’s letter of 1 December 2009 informing the applicant that a decision on the applicant’s second application for access to the file of the LIEN 97-2011 contract could not be taken within the period prescribed.
In support of its application the applicant submits, in essence, that the Commission was not entitled to deny the applicant access to the documents applied for on the basis of the exceptions laid down under Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The applicant further submits in that regard that there is an overriding public interest in the release of the documents which have not yet been made available.


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Communication pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 concerning the Commission decision to end the term of office of a member of the Conciliation Body instituted in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD and the appointment of a new member to replace that member
Date: 2010-02-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, appeal to an administrative authority, appointment of staff, closing of accounts








C_2011032EN.01001101.xml










1.2.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 32/11





Communication pursuant to Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 concerning the Commission decision to end the term of office of a member of the Conciliation Body instituted in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and the EAFRD and the appointment of a new member to replace that member
2011/C 32/05






1.


The Commission has ended the term of office of Gert LINDEMANN.










2.


He has been replaced by Denis BYRNE until 31 July 2013.
Case C-51/10 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06: gencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2010-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01001701.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/17





Appeal brought on 1 February 2010 by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/06: gencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(Case C-51/10 P)
2010/C 113/25
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-298/2006










—


Refer the case back to the General Court










—


Order OHMI to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR (1) in the it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant's mark was not registrable.
The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR or Article 76 CTMR, or both of these provisions, in not taken proper account of the practice of OHMI as regards registration of marks consisting of numerals or indication the content of publications.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
OJ L 11, p. 1
Case C-52/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. Alter Channel and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis
Date: 2010-02-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, advertising, audiovisual co-production, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, payment








C_2010100EN.01002501.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/25





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 1 February 2010 — Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis
(Case C-52/10)
2010/C 100/37
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Eleftheri Tileorasi A.E. ‘Alter Channel’ and Konstantinos Giannikos

Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (Minister for the Press and the Mass Media) and Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (National Council for Radio and Television)

Question referred

Is Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of ‘surreptitious advertising’, the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is a necessary defining element of the intention to advertise?