do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-340/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Arbitration clause — eContent programme — Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups — Non-performance of the contract — Termination of the contract)
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Greece, action for annulment (EU), cultural promotion, project of common interest, termination of a contract








C_2010080EN.01002301.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/23





Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
(Case T-340/07) (1)

(Arbitration clause - ‘eContent’ programme - Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups - Non-performance of the contract - Termination of the contract)
2010/C 80/39
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, assisted by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought under Articles 235 EC, 238 EC and 288 EC for an order that the Commission make good damage suffered as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
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 poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: egg, egg product, import, import licence, poultrymeat, tariff quota








C_2010031EN.01001201.xml










9.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/12





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 poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin
2010/C 31/06
Commission Regulations (EC) No 533/2007 (1), (EC) No 536/2007 (2), (EC) No 539/2007 (3), (EC) No 1384/2007 (4) and (EC) No 1385/2007 (5) opened tariff quotas for imports of poultrymeat, eggs and egg albumin. 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 09.4070, 09.4169, 09.4015, 09.4402, 09.4091 and 09.4411, cover the quantities available. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 7(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1301/2006 (6), 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 125, 15.5.2007, p. 9.

(2)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 6.

(3)  OJ L 128, 16.5.2007, p. 19.

(4)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 40.

(5)  OJ L 309, 27.11.2007, p. 47.

(6)  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)




09.4070


120 102




09.4169


12 323 750




09.4015


108 000 000




09.4402


5 230 295




09.4091


140 000




09.4411


1 275 000
Case T-59/10: Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications industry, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01005701.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/57





Action brought on 9 February 2010 — Geemarc Telecom v OHIM — Audioline (AMPLIDECT)
(Case T-59/10)
2010/C 100/84
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Geemarc Telecom International Ltd (Wanchai, Hong Kong) (represented by: G. Farrington, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Audioline GmbH (Neuss, Germany)

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 20 November 2009 in case R 913/2009-2; and










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘AMPLIDECT’ for goods in classes 9 and 16

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal and, as a result, cancelled the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to take into account that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had failed to adduce evidence of lack of distinctive character of the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity; and (ii) failed to take into account that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity has acquired an enhanced distinctiveness through the level of use made of it; the Board of Appeal failed to restrict itself to an examination of the evidence and arguments provided by the parties within the time line set by the Board of Appeal.
Appointment of the Commission European Parliament decision of 9 February 2010 giving consent to the appointment of the Commission
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, appointment of staff, institutional activity








CE2010341EN.01007901.xml










16.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 341/79





Tuesday 9 February 2010Appointment of the Commission
P7_TA(2010)0010
European Parliament decision of 9 February 2010 giving consent to the appointment of the Commission
2010/C 341 E/17

The European Parliament,
having regard to Article 17(7) of the EU Treaty and Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty,
having regard to Council Decision 2009/532/EC (1), meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government, of 9 July 2009 nominating Mr José Manuel Durão Barroso as President of the Commission,
having regard to the ‘Political Guidelines for the next Commission’ presented by the President-elect of the Commission on 3 September 2009,
having regard to its decision of 16 September 2009 (2) electing Mr Durão Barroso as President of the Commission,
having regard to European Council Decision 2009/950/EU, taken with the agreement of the President of the Commission, of 4 December 2009 appointing the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (3),
having regard to Council Decision 2010/41/EU, Euratom, taken by common accord with the President-elect of the Commission, of 22 January 2010 adopting the list of the other persons whom the Council proposes for appointment as Members of the Commission (4),
having regard to the hearings of the Commissioners-designate before the parliamentary committees responsible, held from 11 January to 3 February 2010, and to the committees’ evaluations of the Commissioners-designate after the hearings,
having regard to the evaluations conducted at the meetings of the Conference of Presidents of 21 January and 4 February 2010,
having regard to the statement made in plenary sitting by the President-elect of the Commission on 9 February 2010,
having regard to Rule 106 of, and Annex XVII to, its Rules of Procedure,






1.


Gives its consent to the appointment of the President, the Vice-President for External Relations (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the other Members of the Commission, as a body, for the term of office running to 31 October 2014;










2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Council and the Council of Ministers.






(1)  OJ L 179, 10.7.2009, p. 61.

(2)  Minutes of that date, P7_PV(2009)09-16, Item 7.1.

(3)  OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 69.

(4)  OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 5.
Case C-75/10 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-40/08: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2010-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), appeal, control of State aid, credit insurance, nuclear power station








C_2010113EN.01002102.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-40/08: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-75/10 P)
2010/C 113/33
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-40/08, 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-40/08 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.
The Appellant contests the CFI’s conclusion that it's 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.