do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-113/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH v OHIM (SupplementPack) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community word mark SupplementPack — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), aesthetic surgery, trade-mark law








C_2010080EN.01002501.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/25





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH v OHIM (SupplementPack)
(Case T-113/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for a Community word mark SupplementPack - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 80/43
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: K. Mende, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2009 (Case R 996/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign SupplementPack as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


PromoCell bioscience alive GmbH Biomedizinische Produkte is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, credit insurance, electrical energy, environmental protection, export aid, gas, water








C_2010031EN.01000801.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/8





Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 31/03






Date of adoption of the decision


17.9.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 437/09




Member State


Romania




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Schemă de ajutor de stat pentru promovarea cogenerării




Legal basis


Proiect de Hotărâre de Guvern privind stabilirea criteriilor și a condițiilor necesare implementării schemei de sprijin pentru promovarea cogenerării de înaltă eficiență pe baza cererii de energie termică utilă




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant




Budget


Overall budget: RON 17 232,80 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


1.1.2010-31.12.2023




Economic sectors


Electricity, gas and water supply




Name and address of the granting authority


CN Transelectrica SA
Str. Armand Călinescu, nr. 2-4, sector 2
021012 București
ROMÂNIA




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm






Date of adoption of the decision


5.10.2009




Reference number of State Aid


N 449/09




Member State


France




Region


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Assurance-crédit export de court terme (CAP export)




Legal basis


Code des assurances (articles L432-1 et L432-2)




Type of measure


Aid scheme




Objective


Aid to remedy serious disturbances in the economy, Export credits




Form of aid


Guarantee




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 1 000 million




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


until 31.12.2010




Economic sectors


All sectors




Name and address of the granting authority







Ministère de l'économie, de l'industrie et de l'emploi




139 rue de Bercy




75012 Paris




FRANCE








Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/state_aids_texts_en.htm
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010031EN.01001101.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/11





Euro exchange rates (1)

8 February 2010
2010/C 31/05

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3675




JPY


Japanese yen


122,07




DKK


Danish krone


7,4442




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87610




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1616




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4659




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1705




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,168




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


273,90




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7088




PLN


Polish zloty


4,1040




RON


Romanian leu


4,1370




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0851




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5765




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4640




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6263




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9914




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9450




KRW


South Korean won


1 602,60




ZAR


South African rand


10,6097




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3355




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3225




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 861,76




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7063




PHP


Philippine peso


63,705




RUB


Russian rouble


41,7060




THB


Thai baht


45,387




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5681




MXN


Mexican peso


18,0130




INR


Indian rupee


64,0130






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-74/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, action for annulment (EU), appeal, control of State aid, credit insurance, nuclear power station








C_2010113EN.01002101.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/21





Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-74/10 P)
2010/C 113/32
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void;










—


refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court;










—


order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant asks the Court to declare the Order of the CFI of 19 November 2009 in case T-94/07 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.
The Appellant contests the CFI's conclusion that its lawyer, Dr Fouquet, could not represent it before the CFI and that its application was therefore inadmissible.
The CFI considers that because Dr Fouquet was nominated as a director of EREF on 29 June 2004 she could no longer be considered an independent third party. The Appellant submits that Dr Fouquet had not been formally nominated as a director of EREF — under Belgian law such a nomination would have required official registration with the competent Belgian authorities. The director status of Dr Fouquet at EREF was titular only and not, or only to a very limited extent, linked to the power of representation.
The Appellant also submits that even if it is assumed that the position of Dr Fouquet as director was of a formal nature the CFI incorrectly applied the criteria for assessing the status of a lawyer as an independent third party. It is submitted that the CFI misunderstood both the legal situation of EREF's representative before the Court and the real distribution of tasks and obligations between Dr Fouquet and EREF. Pursuant to German law the position of Dr Fouquet as director of EREF would allow her to represent the Appellant before the Court.
Case F-12/10: Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Kerstens v European Commission
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction








C_2010113EN.01007902.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/79





Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Kerstens v European Commission
(Case F-12/10)
2010/C 113/117
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision imposing on the applicant a disciplinary penalty in the form of a written warning.

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 23 April 2009 imposing on the applicant a disciplinary penalty in the form of a written warning;










—


Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5629 — Normeston/MOL/MET JV) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crude oil, diesel fuel, disclosure of information, economic concentration, marketing, merger control, natural gas, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010031EN.01001001.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/10





Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case COMP/M.5629 — Normeston/MOL/MET JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 31/04
On 11 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 32009M5629. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.
Case C-72/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State monopoly, freedom to provide services, game of chance, interpretation of the law, national law, right of establishment








C_2010100EN.01002702.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Marcello Costa
(Case C-72/10)
2010/C 100/41
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Party to the main proceedings

Marcello Costa

Question referred

The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence; (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 121/2010 of 9 February 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Provolone del Monaco (PDO))
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Italy, cheese, designation of origin, location of production, product designation








L_2010038EN.01000101.xml










11.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 38/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 121/2010
of 9 February 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Provolone del Monaco (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Provolone del Monaco’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 9 February 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 140, 20.6.2009, p. 4.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.3.   Cheeses

ITALY
Provolone del Monaco (PDO)
Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2010 under certain quotas opened by the Community for pigmeat products
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: import, import licence, pigmeat, tariff quota








C_2010031EN.01001301.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/13





Commission notice concerning the quantity not applied for to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2010 under certain quotas opened by the Community for pigmeat products
2010/C 31/07
Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2009 (1) opened tariff quotas for imports of pigmeat products. The applications for import licences lodged during the first seven days of December 2009 for the subperiod 1 January to 31 March 2010 do not, for quotas 09.4038, 09.4170 and 09.4204, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (2), the quantities that were not applied for are to be added to the quantity fixed for the following quota subperiod, from 1 April to 30 June 2010; they are set out in the Annex to this notice.


(1)  OJ L 129, 28.5.2009, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 238, 1.9.2006, p. 13.


ANNEX






Quota order number


Quantities not applied for, to be added to the quantity fixed for the subperiod 1 April to 30 June 2010
(in kg)




09.4038


12 234 780




09.4170


3 331 500




09.4204


3 268 000
Case C-77/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Ugo Cifone v Giudice delle indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Trani
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State monopoly, freedom to provide services, game of chance, interpretation of the law, national law, right of establishment








C_2010100EN.01002801.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corta Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 9 February 2010 — Ugo Cifone v Giudice delle indagini preliminari del Tribunale di Trani
(Case C-77/10)
2010/C 100/42
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corta Suprema di Cassazione

Party to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ugo Cifone

Question referred

The Court of Justice is requested to interpret Articles 43 and 49 of the Treaty establishing the European Union with reference to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services in the sector of betting on sports events in order to establish whether or not those Treaty provisions permit national rules establishing a State monopoly and a system of licences and authorisations which, within the context of a given number of licences: (a) tend generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period on the basis of a procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators; (b) in fact ensure the maintenance of commercial positions acquired following a procedure that unlawfully excluded certain operators (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence; (c) provide cases in which the licence may lapse with forfeiture of very large guarantee deposits, including the case in which the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence.
Case C-73/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case T-2/09: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG v European Commission
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), competition law, fixing of prices, import, interpretation of the law, judicial proceedings, offer price, restriction on competition, tropical fruit








C_2010080EN.01002202.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/22





Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case T-2/09: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG v European Commission
(Case C-73/10 P)
2010/C 80/38
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. KG (represented by: A. Rinne, Rechtsanwalt, S. Kon, Solicitor, C. Humpe, Solicitor, C. Vajda QC)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the Order of the CFI in Case T- 2/09 dated 30 November 2009; and










—


declare Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09 admissible and refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on Weichert's claims seeking annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 15 October 2008 (Case COMP/39.188 — Bananas) — in so far as it relates to Weichert, or










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment on the admissibility of Weichert's application for annulment in Case T-2/09.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the CFI erred in law by declaring the application inadmissible on the basis that there could only be a derogation from the application of the Community rules on procedural time limits where the circumstances are either unforeseeable or amount to force majeure. It is submitted that such an approach is unduly narrow and fails to take any, or any proper account, of the importance of the right of access to a court in criminal proceedings, the principle of legality in criminal proceedings, and principle of proportionality, and the overriding need to avoid an unjust result.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5773 — Qatar Petroleum/General Electric Company/PII Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: crude oil, economic concentration, energy transport, exchange of information, management, merger control, oil industry, pipeline transport, provision of services, technology








C_2010031EN.01001401.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/14





Prior notification of a concentration
(Case COMP/M.5773 — Qatar Petroleum/General Electric Company/PII Group)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
2010/C 31/08






1.


On 29 January 2010, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Al Shaheen Energy Services Company (‘ASESC’, Qatar), controlled by Qatar Petroleum (‘QP’, Qatar) and General Electric Company (‘GE’, USA) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the EC Merger Regulation joint control of the PII Group Ltd (‘PII Group’, United Kingdom) and PII North America LLC (‘PII Group’, USA), controlled by the General Electric Company (‘GE’, USA) by way of purchase of shares.










2.


The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for QP: exploration, drilling and production operations, transport, storage, marketing and sale of crude oil, refined products, petrochemicals and fertilizers,










—


for GE: global, diversified manufacturing, technology and services company,










—


for PII Group: worldwide provider of pipeline inspection and integrity services to operators of oil and gas pipelines.














3.


On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the EC Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the EC Merger Regulation (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.










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), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference number COMP/M.5773 — Qatar Petroleum/General Electric Company/PII Group, 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 (the ‘EC Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32 (‘Notice on a simplified procedure’).