do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2010 of 4 March 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: 2010-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, skimmed milk powder








L_2010055EN.01005901.xml










5.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/59








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 188/2010
of 4 March 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 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 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 2 March 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 2 March 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 5 March 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 March 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-578/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken (Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Concept of recourse to the social assistance system — Concept of family reunification — Family formation)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, family, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), tax, tax system








C_2010113EN.01001301.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/13





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Rhimou Chakroun v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
(Case C-578/08) (1)

(Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Concept of ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ - Concept of ‘family reunification’ - Family formation)
2010/C 113/17
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rhimou Chakroun

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Articles 2(d) and 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Concepts of ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ and of ‘family reunification’.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The phrase ‘recourse to the social assistance system’ in Article 7(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting rules in respect of family reunification which result in such reunification being refused to a sponsor who has proved that he has stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself and the members of his family, but who, given the level of his resources, will nevertheless be entitled to claim special assistance in order to meet exceptional, individually determined, essential living costs, tax refunds granted by local authorities on the basis of his income, or income-support measures in the context of local-authority minimum-income policies (‘minimabeleid’)










2.


Directive 2003/86, in particular Article 2(d) thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in applying the income requirement set out in Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2003/86, draws a distinction according to whether the family relationship arose before or after the sponsor entered the territory of the host Member State.






(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case C-258/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2008/1/EC — integrated pollution prevention and control — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, greenhouse gas, judgment of the Court (EU), pollution, water pollution








C_2010113EN.01001402.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/14





Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-258/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2008/1/EC - integrated pollution prevention and control - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
2010/C 113/20
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and A. Marghelis, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, Agent)

Re:

Failure to adopt or communicate, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply, in the Walloon Region, with Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Existing installations liable to have an effect on emissions into the air, water and soil and on pollution.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by authorising, in the Walloon Region, the operation of existing installations which do not comply with the requirements laid down in Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, despite the time-limit of 30 October 2007 as laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.
Case T-552/08: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Commission v Domótica
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), medical institution, oil refining, petroleum product








C_2010113EN.01007803.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/78





Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Commission v Domótica
(Case T-552/08) (1)

2010/C 113/114

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.
Case T-409/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather from China and Vietnam — Market economy treatment — Sampling — Lack of cooperation — Rights of the defence — Injury — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Viet Nam, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2010113EN.01003801.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/38





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory v Council
(Case T-409/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather from China and Vietnam - Market economy treatment - Sampling - Lack of cooperation - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state reasons)
2010/C 113/59
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd (Hui Yang City, China) (represented by I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC and K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, Agents); Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and then by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers); BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas (Monte Urano, Italy) and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by G. Celona, P. Tabellini and C. Cavaliere, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sun Sang Kong Yuen Shoes Factory (Hui Yang) Corp. Ltd to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission, the Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC), BA.LA. di Lanciotti Vittorio & C. Sas and the 16 other interveners listed in the annex to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.
Case C-198/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 95/59/EC — Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco — Article 9(1) — Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products — National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes and a minimum retail selling price for fine-cut tobacco — Justification — Protection of public health — World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, excise duty, judgment of the Court (EU), minimum price, selling price, tobacco








C_2010113EN.01000602.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/6





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
(Case C-198/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes and a minimum retail selling price for fine-cut tobacco - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)
2010/C 113/08
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Lyal, Agents, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, J. Bauer and C. Pesendorfer, Agents)

Re:

Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing of the minimum retail selling prices for manufactured tobacco by the public authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force legislation by which the public authorities fix minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;










2.


Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.
Case T-564/08: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO — 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: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), game of chance, trade-mark law








C_2010113EN.01004301.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/43





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Monoscoop v OHIM (SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO)
(Case T-564/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO - 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 113/68
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Monoscoop BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 September 2008 (Case R 816/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark SUDOKU SAMURAI BINGO as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monoscoop BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 187/2010 of 4 March 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: 2010-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, butter, export refund








L_2010055EN.01005801.xml










5.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 55/58








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 187/2010
of 4 March 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 2 March 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 2 March 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 5 March 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 4 March 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-193/09 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bayer AG (Appeal — Application for registration of Community word mark ARCOL — Opposition by proprietor of Community word mark CAPOL — Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of its Boards of Appeal — Right to be heard — Likelihood of confusion — Minimal degree of similarity of the marks required — Rejection for manifest irrelevance of new evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal — Articles 8(1)(b), 61(2), 63(6), 73, second sentence, and 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, appeal, chemical product, trade-mark law








C_2010234EN.01001802.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/18





Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Kaul GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Bayer AG
(Case C-193/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - Application for registration of Community word mark ARCOL - Opposition by proprietor of Community word mark CAPOL - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Likelihood of confusion - Minimal degree of similarity of the marks required - Rejection for manifest irrelevance of new evidence adduced before the Board of Appeal - Articles 8(1)(b), 61(2), 63(6), 73, second sentence, and 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
2010/C 234/27
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Kaul GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, Rechtsanwalt and Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Bayer AG

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 25 March 2009 in Case T-402/07 Kaul GmbH v OHIM by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘CAPOL’ for goods in Class 1 against Decision R 782/2000-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 August 2007, dismissing for the second time the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division which rejected the opposition brought against the application for registration of the Community word mark ‘ARCOL’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 20, following the annulment in Case C-29/05 P OHIM v Kaul of the Third Board of Appeal’s initial decision to reject the opposition

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Kaul GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.
Case T-303/94: Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Jong v Council and Commission
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: dairy industry, indemnification, marketing, ordinance








C_2010134EN.01005001.xml










22.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 134/50





Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Jong v Council and Commission
(Case T-303/94)
2010/C 134/80

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.
Case T-410/06: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council (Dumping — Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam — Calculation of the constructed normal value — Export price — Rights of the defence — Injury — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
Date: 2010-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Viet Nam, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, footwear industry, import (EU), leather, originating product








C_2010113EN.01003901.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/39





Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial v Council
(Case T-410/06) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam - Calculation of the constructed normal value - Export price - Rights of the defence - Injury - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
2010/C 113/60
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd (Lishui, China) (represented by: I. MacVay, Solicitor, R. Thompson QC, and K. Beal, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and T. Scharf, acting as Agents) and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented; initially by P. Vlaemminck, G. Zonnekeyn and S. Verhulst and subsequently by P. Vlaemminck and A. Hubert, lawyers)

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People’s Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Foshan City Nanhai Golden Step Industrial Co., Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission and Confédération européenne de l’industrie de la chaussure (CEC) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.