do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-38/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (Appeal — The Court’s power of review — Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 — Agriculture — Community plant variety rights — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Variety a matter of common knowledge — Proof — Plant variety SUMCOL 01)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, appeal, crop production, plant propagation, protection of plant life








C_2010148EN.01000901.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/9





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
(Case C-38/09 P) (1)

(Appeal - The Court’s power of review - Regulations (EC) Nos 2100/94 and 1239/95 - Agriculture - Community plant variety rights - Distinctness of the candidate variety - Variety a matter of common knowledge - Proof - Plant variety SUMCOL 01)
2010/C 148/13
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) (represented by: M. Ekvad and B. Kiewiet, acting as Agents, and by A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Schräder v CPVO, by which that Court dismissed the action brought by the appellant against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 2 May 2006 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the CPVO concerning the rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety ‘SUMCOL 01’ — Distinctness of the candidate variety — Factors which can be taken into consideration in order to determine whether a variety is a matter of common knowledge — Incorrect assessment of the facts — Infringement of the right to be heard before a court

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal.










2.


Orders Mr Schräder to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.
Case F-104/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Angelidis v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Vacant post — Execution of a judgment annulling the appointing decision — Legitimate expectations — Principle of officials’ entitlement to a career — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Parliament, action by staff, budget, business policy, damages, job vacancy








C_2010148EN.01005202.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/52





Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Angelidis v Parliament
(Case F-104/08) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Vacant post - Execution of a judgment annulling the appointing decision - Legitimate expectations - Principle of officials’ entitlement to a career - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers)
2010/C 148/92
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and S. Seyr, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of notice of vacancy No 12564 concerning the filling of the post of Director of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies of the European Union — Directorate D Budgetary Affairs of the European Parliament and the recruitment procedure initiated by that notice. Second, annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s candidacy for the post of Director of Budgetary Affairs of the Directorate-General for Internal Policies and to appoint another candidate to that post. Lastly, a claim for damages for the non-material and material loss suffered by the applicant and for him to be appointed to the grade of Director ‘ad personam’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:






1.


Orders the European Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 1 000 to Mr Angelidis;










2.


Dismisses the remainder of the action;










3.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and pay one third of the costs of Mr Angelidis;










4.


Orders Mr Angelidis to bear two thirds of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 77.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 313/2010 of 15 April 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010096EN.01000101.xml










16.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 96/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 313/2010
of 15 April 2010
         
establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables


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),


Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules for Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (2), and in particular Article 138(1) thereof,

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in Annex XV, Part A thereto,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The standard import values referred to in Article 138 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 are fixed in the Annex hereto.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 April 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 15 April 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 350, 31.12.2007, p. 1.




ANNEX
Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables







(EUR/100 kg)




CN code


Third country code (1)



Standard import value




0702 00 00 


JO 


87,5 




MA 


92,8 




TN 


129,4 




TR 


101,0 




ZZ 


102,7 




0707 00 05 


MA 


62,1 




TR 


123,6 




ZZ 


92,9 




0709 90 70 


MA 


46,5 




TR 


99,0 




ZZ 


72,8 




0805 10 20 


EG 


49,3 




IL 


49,2 




MA 


49,9 




TN 


47,2 




TR 


61,6 




ZZ 


51,4 




0805 50 10 


EG 


66,0 




TR 


64,4 




ZA 


71,6 




ZZ 


67,3 




0808 10 80 


AR 


91,2 




BR 


85,1 




CA 


111,8 




CL 


94,4 




CN 


73,6 




MK 


22,1 




NZ 


94,6 




US 


132,0 




UY 


72,7 




ZA 


80,6 




ZZ 


85,8 




0808 20 50 


AR 


89,9 




CL 


121,4 




CN 


50,4 




ZA 


98,5 




ZZ 


90,1 






(1)  Nomenclature of countries laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1833/2006 (OJ L 354, 14.12.2006, p. 19). Code ‘
            ZZ
            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.
Case C-511/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH (Directive 97/7/EC — Consumer protection — Distance contracts — Right of withdrawal — Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distance selling, freight rate, interpretation of the law, national law, termination of a contract








C_2010148EN.01000602.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/6





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV v Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH
(Case C-511/08) (1)

(Directive 97/7/EC - Consumer protection - Distance contracts - Right of withdrawal - Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods)
2010/C 148/09
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Verbraucherzentrale Nordrhein-Westfalen eV

Defendant: Handelsgesellschaft Heinrich Heine GmbH

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 6(1), second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts (OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19) — National legislation which allows the costs of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer if he withdraws from the contract

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1), first subparagraph, second sentence, and Article 6(2) of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the context of a distance contract, requires the cost of delivering the goods to be charged to the consumer after he exercises his right of withdrawal.


(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
Case C-215/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Scope of Directive 85/577/EEC — Entry into a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership — Cancellation)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: association, consumer protection, contract, cooperative, door-to-door selling, interpretation of the law, organisation, shareholding








C_2010148EN.01000502.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/5





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — E. Friz GmbH v Carsten von der Heyden
(Case C-215/08) (1)

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Scope of Directive 85/577/EEC - Entry into a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership - Cancellation)
2010/C 148/07
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: E. Friz GmbH

Defendant: Carsten von der Heyden

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 5(2) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Scope — Consumer joining a closed-end real property fund in the form of a partnership whose essential purpose is the investment of capital — Legal effects of cancellation.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises applies to a contract, concluded in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning a consumer’s entry to a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership when the principal purpose of joining is not to become a member of that partnership, but is a means of capital investment;










2.


Article 5(2) of the Directive does not preclude, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a national law according to which, in the event of cancellation of membership of a closed-end real property fund established in the form of a partnership, entered into following a doorstep transaction, the consumer has a claim against that partnership, to his severance balance, calculated on the basis of the value of his interest at the date of his retirement from membership of that fund, and may therefore get back less than the value of his capital contribution or have to participate in the losses of that fund.






(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Case C-64/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/53/EC — Articles 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(1) — Defective transposition)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental protection, metal waste, motor vehicle, waste management








C_2010148EN.01000902.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/9





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
(Case C-64/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - Articles 5(3) and (4), 6(3) and 7(1) - Defective transposition)
2010/C 148/14
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Adam, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the complete and correct implementation of Article 2(13), Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), Article 6(3), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) — Definitions of ‘dismantling information’ for out-of use vehicles and ‘stripping’ during their treatment — Obligation on vehicle manufacturers and component producers to provide dismantling information, in the form of manuals or by means of electronic media, for each type of new vehicle put on the market

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws and regulations necessary to ensure the correct and complete transposition of Article 2.13, Article 4(2)(a), Article 5(3) and (4), in so far as, for the latter paragraph, demolishers which have accepted to take back an end-of-life vehicle for destruction are excluded from the system of compensation for costs of treatment, Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own respective costs.






(1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.
Case T-175/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law








C_2010161EN.01005001.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/50






Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Milux v OHIM (FERTILITYINVIVO)
(Case T-175/10)
(2010/C 161/79)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant(s): Milux Holding SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 February 2010 in case R 1116/2009-4; and










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FERTILITYINVIVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for is not eligible for registration as a Community trade mark because it does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.
Case C-485/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Claudia Gualtieri v European Commission (Appeal — Seconded national expert — Daily subsistence allowance — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, allowances and expenses, appeal, equal pay, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants








C_2010148EN.01000601.xml










5.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/6





Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 April 2010 — Claudia Gualtieri v European Commission
(Case C-485/08 P) (1)

(Appeal - Seconded national expert - Daily subsistence allowance - Principle of equal treatment)
2010/C 148/08
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (represented by: P. Gualtieri and M. Gualtieri, avvocati)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri v Commission, by which that court dismissed the application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 January 2006 rejecting the applicant’s claim for adjustment, following her divorce, of the amount of the allowances payable under Article 17 of Commission Decision C(2002) 1559 of 30 April 2002 laying down the rules applicable to national experts on secondment, as amended.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ms Gualtieri to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.
Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of KD Life Asigurări S.A. (Publication made in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, insurance company, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2010095EN.01000601.xml










15.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/6





Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of KD Life Asigurări S.A.

(Publication made in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)

2010/C 95/04






Insurance undertaking







KD Life Asigurări S.A.




Calea Giulești nr. 8D, et. 3, sector 6




București




ROMÂNIA








Date, entry into force and nature of the decision


Decision No 190 of 3 March 2010
Entry into force: 3 March 2010
Financial reorganisation under special administration




Competent authorities


Insurance Supervisory Commission




Supervisory authority


Insurance Supervisory Commission




Special administrator appointed







Nicolae Eugen Crișan




Calea Giulești nr. 8D, et. 3, sector 6




București




ROMÂNIA








Applicable law


Act No 503/2004 on financial reorganisation and bankruptcy of insurance undertakings
Case T-22/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration by the examiner — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to rule)
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), confectionery product, trade-mark law








C_2010161EN.01004003.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/40






Judgment of the General Court of 15 April 2010 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face)
(Case T-22/09) (1)

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration by the examiner - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to rule)
(2010/C 161/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Jenewein, later by C. Jenewein and G. Schneider, Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 (Case R 1299/2006-4) concerning an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional mark showing a panda face in black, white and red.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Holds that there is no need to rule on the action;










2.


Orders the applicant to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.
Case C-186/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 15 April 2010 — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Date: 2010-04-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, foreign national, interpretation of the law, residence permit, self-employed person








C_2010179EN.01002001.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/20






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 15 April 2010 — Tural Oguz v Secretary of State for the Home Department
(Case C-186/10)
(2010/C 179/32)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tural Oguz

Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Question referred

Where a Turkish national, having leave to remain in the United Kingdom on condition that he does not engage in any business or profession, enters into self-employment in breach of that condition and then applies to the national authorities for further leave to remain on the basis of the business which he has now established, is he entitled to the benefit of Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey?