do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-502/08: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to rule)
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), motor vehicle industry, trade-mark law








C_2010195EN.01001802.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/18





Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline)
(Case T-502/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to rule)
2010/C 195/29
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wofsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. S. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Deutsche BP AG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2008 (Case R 513/2007-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Deutsche BP AG and Volkswagen AG

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


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










2.


Orders the applicant and the defendant to pay their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.
Case T-74/09: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — France v Commission
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAGGF, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural production, fruit vegetable








C_2010195EN.01003201.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/32





Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — France v Commission
(Case T-74/09) (1)

2010/C 195/52

Language of the case: French

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


(1)  OJ C 102, 1.05.2009.
Case T-224/10: Action brought on 17 May 2010 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, action for annulment, disclosure of information, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy distribution, energy production, gas, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation








C_2010209EN.01004101.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/41





Action brought on 17 May 2010 — Association Belge des Consommateurs Tests-Achats v Commission
(Case T-224/10)
()
2010/C 209/63
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Association Belge des Consommateurs Test-Achats ASBL/Belgische Verbruikersunie Test-Aankoop VZW (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Filpo and A. Fratini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Commission Decisions No C(2009) 9059 and No C(2009) 8954, both of 12 November 2009, in Case COMP/M.5549 — EDF/SEGEBEL; and










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the contested decisions in so far as the Commission decided not to partially refer the concentration between Electricité de France S.A. and Segebel to the Belgian Competition Authority under Article 9 of the Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) (the EC Merger Regulation) and declared the concentration compatible with the common market subject to commitments, under Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation.
In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:






 


In its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decisions lack adequate statements of reason, violate Article 6(2) of the Merger Regulation, and are affected by manifest errors of evaluation, in so far as the Commission does not take adequately into account the competitive relation between the merged entity and the incumbent operator GDF Suez.










 


In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission has infringed its procedural rights to participate in the procedure.










 


In its third plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission did not have the compelling and decisive elements to conclude that the transaction would not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market, without initiating proceedings under Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger Regulation. Furthermore, the applicant claims that these defects also affect the decision not to refer the case to the Belgian Competition Authority, as the Commission did not have sufficient elements to establish whether or not it was the best placed authority to deal with the notified transaction.






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ L 24, p. 1.
Case C-241/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 17 May 2010 — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, equal treatment, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, labour mobility








C_2010221EN.01001802.xml










14.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 221/18





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 17 May 2010 — Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
(Case C-241/10)
()
2010/C 221/30
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Harald Jung and Gerald Hellweger

Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg

Other party to the proceedings: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

Question referred

Is Annex X of the list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (1. Freedom of movement for persons) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of workers from Hungary to Austria cannot be regarded as a posting of those workers and that national restrictions concerning the employment of Hungarian workers in Austria apply equally, in Austria, in respect of Hungarian workers (regularly employed in Hungary) leased by Hungarian undertakings to Austria?


(1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 422/2010 of 17 May 2010 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit








L_2010121EN.01000301.xml










18.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 121/3








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 422/2010
of 17 May 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 18 May 2010.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 17 May 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 


MA 


66,1 




MK 


66,4 




TN 


116,8 




TR 


69,0 




ZZ 


79,6 




0707 00 05 


EG 


140,2 




MA 


46,1 




MK 


50,2 




TR 


119,6 




ZZ 


89,0 




0709 90 70 


TR 


114,2 




ZZ 


114,2 




0805 10 20 


EG 


55,3 




IL 


56,9 




MA 


56,1 




PY 


47,6 




TN 


46,4 




TR 


49,3 




US 


74,5 




ZZ 


55,2 




0805 50 10 


AR 


104,0 




TR 


70,2 




ZA 


87,8 




ZZ 


87,3 




0808 10 80 


AR 


82,0 




BR 


78,7 




CL 


79,7 




CN 


74,3 




CR 


59,1 




MK 


24,7 




NZ 


112,3 




US 


123,8 




UY 


77,5 




ZA 


86,1 




ZZ 


79,8 






(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-242/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
Date: 2010-05-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, electrical energy, electrical industry, energy distribution, energy transport, interpretation of the law








C_2010209EN.01002402.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/24





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
(Case C-242/10)
()
2010/C 209/33
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Terza

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

Question referred

Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to ‘transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures’?