do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-243/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game — Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY — Relative ground for refusal — Lack of similarity between the signs — Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2010179EN.01003502.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/35






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)
(Case T-243/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark EDUCA Memory game - Earlier national and international word marks MEMORY - Relative ground for refusal - Lack of similarity between the signs - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 74 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 76 and 77 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
(2010/C 179/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Educa Borras, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2008 (Case R 597/2007-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Ravensburger AG and Educa Borras, SA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Ravensburger AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.
Case T-181/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Tay Za v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Myanmar — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial review — Right to respect for property — Proportionality)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Myanmar/Burma, action for annulment (EU), economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, restriction of liberty








C_2010179EN.01003402.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/34






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Tay Za v Council
(Case T-181/08) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Myanmar - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Joint legal basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial review - Right to respect for property - Proportionality)
(2010/C 179/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (Yangon, Myanmar) (represented by: D. Anderson QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agent, and subsequently by I. Rao, acting as Agent, and by D. Beard, Barrister); and European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes, P. Aalto and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name appears on the list of persons, entities or bodies to which the regulation applies.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application.










2.


Orders Pye Phyo Tay Za to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.
Case T-19/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Boliden and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Fines — Limitation period — Cooperation)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), copper, market prices, metallurgical industry, sanction (EU), tube, unlawful agreement








C_2010179EN.01003001.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/30






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Boliden and Others v Commission
(Case T-19/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Fines - Limitation period - Cooperation)
(2010/C 179/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Boliden AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB, formerly Boliden Fabrication AB (Västerås, Sweden); Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA, formerly Boliden Cuivre & Zinc SA (Liège, Belgium) (represented: initially by C. Wetter and O. Rislund and subsequently by C. Wetter and M. Johansson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, Agents)

Re:

Application (i) for annulment of Article 1(a) to (c) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) in so far as it was thereby found that the applicants participated in an infringement between 1 July 1995 and 27 August 1998 and between 10 December 1998 and 7 October 1999; (ii) for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;










3.


Orders Boliden AB, Outokumpu Copper Fabrication AB and Outokumpu Copper BCZ SA to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;










4.


Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
Case T-11/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Ne bis in idem principle — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition law, copper, fine, market-sharing agreement, metallurgical industry, price agreement, tube








C_2010179EN.01002901.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/29






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Wieland-Werke and Others v Commission
(Case T-11/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
(2010/C 179/47)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany); Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH (Amstetten, Austria); and Austria Buntmetall AG (Enzesfeld, Austria); (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents, and by G. Eickstädt, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Huber and G. Kimberley, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes); second, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants by that decision; and third, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;










3.


Orders Wieland-Werke AG, Buntmetall Amstetten GmbH and Austria Buntmetall AG to bear their own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;










4.


Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs;










5.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010129EN.01001101.xml










19.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/11





Euro exchange rates (1)

18 May 2010
2010/C 129/04

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2428




JPY


Japanese yen


115,32




DKK


Danish krone


7,4404




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85895




SEK


Swedish krona


9,5545




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4028




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,7280




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,458




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


277,38




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7074




PLN


Polish zloty


3,9990




RON


Romanian leu


4,1950




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9080




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4178




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2760




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,6877




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7707




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7227




KRW


South Korean won


1 424,93




ZAR


South African rand


9,3731




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,4851




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2550




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 347,23




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9931




PHP


Philippine peso


56,224




RUB


Russian rouble


37,6030




THB


Thai baht


40,186




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2250




MXN


Mexican peso


15,5704




INR


Indian rupee


56,6650






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-25/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — KME Germany and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Actual impact on the market — Size of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Ability to pay — Cooperation)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Germany, Italy, action for annulment (EU), competition policy, copper, fine, tube








C_2010179EN.01003102.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/31






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — KME Germany and Others v Commission
(Case T-25/05) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Actual impact on the market - Size of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Ability to pay - Cooperation)
(2010/C 179/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG (Osnabrück, Germany); KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA (Courbevoie, France); and KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, A. Winckler, G.C. Rizza, T. Graf, M. Piergiovanni, lawyers, and R. Elderkin, Barrister)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, S. Noë and C. Thomas, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for reduction of the fines imposed on the applicants under Article 2(g), (h) and (i) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) and, second, by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for those fines to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;










3.


Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy Spa to bear their own costs and to pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;










4.


Orders the Commission to bear 50 % of its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.
Case T-464/08: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera) (Community trade mark — Application for the figurative Community trade mark Superleggera — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts of its own motion — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), motor vehicle, motor vehicle industry, trade-mark law








C_2010179EN.01003602.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/36






Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Zeta Europe v OHIM (Superleggera)
(Case T-464/08) (1)

(Community trade mark - Application for the figurative Community trade mark Superleggera - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
(2010/C 179/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Zeta Europe BV (Arnhem, Netherlands) (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Sempio and O. Montalto, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 (Case R 666/2008-1), concerning an application for the registration of the figurative sign Superleggera as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zeta Europe BV to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 313 of 6.12.2008
2010/326/: Decision No 4/2010 of the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors of 19 May 2010 on the appointment of the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: ACP Committee of Ambassadors
Subjects: Centre for the Development of Enterprise, appointment of members, managing director








L_2010145EN.01001801.xml










11.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 145/18








            DECISION No 4/2010 OF THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS
         
of 19 May 2010
         
on the appointment of the Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise (CDE)
(2010/326/EU)


THE ACP-EU COMMITTEE OF AMBASSADORS,

Having regard to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (1), as revised by the Agreement amending the said Partnership Agreement, signed in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005 (2), and in particular Article 2(7) of Annex III thereto,

Whereas:







(1)


The previous Deputy Director’s term of office expired on 28 February 2010.












(2)


At the end of its proceedings, a joint selection committee established by both sides proposed the appointment of Ms Jyoti JEETUN (Mauritius) as Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Sole Article
Without prejudice to any subsequent decisions that the Committee might have to take under its prerogatives, Ms Jyoti JEETUN (Mauritius) is hereby appointed Deputy Director of the Centre for the Development of Enterprise with effect from 1 September 2010 until 28 February 2015.




Done at Brussels, 19 May 2010.


For the ACP-EU Committee of Ambassadors


The Chairman

René MAKONGO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 317, 15.12.2000, p. 3.

(2)  
            OJ L 209, 11.8.2005, p. 27.
Case F-33/10: Action brought on 19 May 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, report








C_2010209EN.01005303.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/53





Action brought on 19 May 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
(Case F-33/10)
()
2010/C 209/83
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application to annul the applicant’s career development report in respect of the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005, as it was drawn up following its annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-36/07

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the applicant’s career development report (CDR) in respect of the period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005, as it was drawn up following its annulment by the Civil Service Tribunal by the judgment of 7 May 2008 in Case F-36/07 Lebedef v Commission;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland (Case E-3/10)
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: EFTA Court, Iceland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, financial institution, insurance company








C_2010191EN.01001001.xml










15.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/10





Action brought on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
(Case E-3/10)
2010/C 191/08
An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 19 May 2010 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Bjørnar Alterskjær, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, rue Belliard 35, 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË.
The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:






1.


By failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to, inter alia, at point 31ea of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of the Act and under Article 7 EEA
and










2.


The Republic of Iceland bears the costs of these proceedings





Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:







—


The present case concerns the non-implementation of a directive on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that it has not received information from Iceland indicating that the directive has been fully implemented into Icelandic law, nor is it in possession of any other information enabling it to conclude that the necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the directive have been taken.










—


The EFTA Surveillance Authority pleads that the Government of Iceland has not disputed that it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to fully comply with the directive.
Case C-245/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2010-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, approximation of laws, association, broadcasting, interpretation of the law, television








C_2010234EN.01002101.xml










28.8.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/21





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 May 2010 — ROJ TV A/S v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-245/10)
()
2010/C 234/33
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ROJ TV A/S

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Question referred

A ruling is sought from the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether and, if so, the circumstances under which the application of national legislation concerning the prohibition of an association for infringement of the principles of international understanding falls within the field coordinated by Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC (2) of 30 June 1997 and, thus, is precluded by Article 2a of the directive?


(1)  Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23).

(2)  Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).