do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-56/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi and Leali v Commission
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), building industry, legal basis, merger control, price fluctuation, restrictive trade practice








C_2010080EN.01004501.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/45





Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi and Leali v Commission
(Case T-56/10)
2010/C 80/71
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi SpA in liquidazione (Brescia, Italy) and Leali SpA (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2009 amending the earlier decision C(2009) 7492 final adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those advanced in Case T-55/10 SP v Commission.
Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: Netherlands
Subjects: Netherlands, disclosure of information, energy site, exploitation of resources, hydrocarbon, mineral prospecting, mining extraction








C_2010033EN.01000901.xml










10.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/9





Communication from the Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons
2010/C 33/05
The Minister for Economic Affairs hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segment M4 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).
With reference to the Directive mentioned in the introduction and Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, No 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit a competing application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block segment M4 of the Dutch continental shelf.
The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the above-mentioned Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).
Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to:





De minister van Economische Zaken




Drs. J.C. De Groot, directeur Energiemarkt




ALP A/562




Postbus 20101




2500 EC Den Haag




NEDERLAND




Applications received after the expiry of this period will not be considered.
A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after this period has expired.
Further information can be obtained by calling Mr P.C. de Regt on the following telephone number: +31 703797088.
Case T-344/07: Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2010 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Homezone — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2010080EN.01002302.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/23





Judgment of the General Court of 10 February 2010 — O2 (Germany) v OHIM (Homezone)
(Case T-344/07) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Homezone - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
2010/C 80/40
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4), concerning an application to register the word sign Homezone as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 July 2007 (Case R 1583/2006-4);










2.


Orders OHIM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010033EN.01000601.xml










10.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 33/6





Euro exchange rates (1)

9 February 2010
2010/C 33/03

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,3760




JPY


Japanese yen


123,40




DKK


Danish krone


7,4448




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88040




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1217




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4672




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


8,1520




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


26,099




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


272,00




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7092




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0775




RON


Romanian leu


4,1280




TRY


Turkish lira


2,0800




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5729




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4680




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


10,6906




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,9877




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,9511




KRW


South Korean won


1 601,45




ZAR


South African rand


10,5992




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


9,3935




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3225




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


12 878,09




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7235




PHP


Philippine peso


63,836




RUB


Russian rouble


41,7640




THB


Thai baht


45,649




BRL


Brazilian real


2,5549




MXN


Mexican peso


18,0645




INR


Indian rupee


64,1970






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-62/10 P: Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), diploma








C_2010113EN.01004902.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/49





Appeal brought on 10 February 2010 by Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission
(Case T-62/10 P)
2010/C 113/80
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Brigitte Zangerl-Posselt (Merzig, Germany) (represented by: S. Paulmann, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the contested judgment;










—


give judgment itself and, as claimed by the appellant at first instance, annul the decision of the selection board of Competition EPSO/AST/27/06 of 25 July 2007 not to allow the appellant to be admitted to the practical and oral tests of that competition which was, in the meantime, confirmed by the decision of 13 December 2007 on her complaint;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in connection with both proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 November 2009 in Case F-83/07 Zangerl-Posselt v Commission, rejecting the appellant’s application.
The appellant bases her appeal on the ground that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law when considering the conditions for admission to Open Competition EPSO/AST/27/06. In that regard, it is alleged inter alia that the Civil Service Tribunal, when deciding whether the appellant possessed a diploma within the meaning of the notice of competition in respect of the competition in question, essentially applied the French version of Article 5(3)(a)(ii) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Further, according to the appellant, the arguments with which the Civil Service Tribunal sought to invalidate the appellant’s submissions are vitiated by a number of errors of law. In that regard, it is submitted inter alia that findings were made whose unlawfulness is apparent from the case-file, and also the clear sense of the evidence submitted was distorted.
The appellant further claims that the indirect discrimination on grounds of age, of which she complains and which was found to have existed, was held to be justified on grounds which were insufficient and false.
Joined Cases C-364/09 P and 365/09 P: Order of the President of the Court of 10 February 2010 — Mineralbrunnen Rhöne-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Schwarzbräu GmbH
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010134EN.01002804.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/28





Order of the President of the Court of 10 February 2010 — Mineralbrunnen Rhöne-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Schwarzbräu GmbH
(Joined Cases C-364/09 P and 365/09 P) (1)

2010/C 134/46

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.
Case T-55/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — SP v Commission
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), building industry, legal basis, merger control, price fluctuation, restrictive trade practice








C_2010080EN.01004401.xml










27.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 80/44





Action brought on 10 February 2010 — SP v Commission
(Case T-55/10)
2010/C 80/70
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: SP SpA in liquidazione (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 December 2009 amending the earlier decision — C(2009) 7492 final — adopted by the Commission on 30 September 2009;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 8 December 2009 (‘the contested decision’), the Commission amended its earlier decision — C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 — by which it had accused a number of companies, including the applicant, of participating in an alleged cartel. By the contested decision, the Commission acknowledged that the decision of 30 September 2009‘referred to an annex which set out tables illustrating the price movements for concrete reinforcing bars during the time when the cartel was in operation’ and that ‘that annex was not included in the decision adopted on 30 September 2009’, and decided to amend that decision in order to incorporate within it the tables annexed to the contested decision.
In support of its action, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:






1.


Illegality of the subsequent rectification of a measure vitiated by a grave defect: the Commission is not empowered to remedy after the event a decision which, being clearly incomplete at the time of adoption, is manifestly invalid; that constitutes a particularly grave circumstance which, as such, cannot be remedied.










2.


Incorrect legal basis cited: the Commission cited as the legal basis for the contested measure Article 65 CS and Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) which are manifestly inappropriate as legal bases for pursuing the aim which the Commission had set itself (that is to say, for supplementing/amending one of its earlier decisions, the text of which had been incomplete). Accordingly, the second decision, which is contested in these proceedings, must be annulled because of the clear lack of an appropriate legal basis.




The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of sound administration.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Case T-60/10: Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)
Date: 2010-02-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), broadcasting, trade-mark law








C_2010100EN.01005702.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/57





Action brought on 10 February 2010 — Jackson International v OHIM — Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)
(Case T-60/10)
2010/C 100/85
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D. Brühl Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: S. Di Natale and H.G. Zeiner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2009 in case R 317/2009-1; and










—


Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE’ for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 42

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

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘RSC ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; non-registered trade mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for various services.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and, as a result, declared invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision have been met.