do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-111/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action brought by an insurer before the court of its place of domicile seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State — Appearance of the defendant entered before the court seised — Jurisdiction not contested and defence as to substance — Entering an appearance conferring jurisdiction)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Czechia, civil law, infringement of EU law, insurance, international trade law, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction








C_2010179EN.01001102.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/11






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Chebu — Czech Republic) — Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group v Michal Bilas
(Case C-111/09) (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Action brought by an insurer before the court of its place of domicile seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State - Appearance of the defendant entered before the court seised - Jurisdiction not contested and defence as to substance - Entering an appearance conferring jurisdiction)
(2010/C 179/17)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Chebu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Česká podnikatelská pojišťovna as, Vienna Insurance Group

Defendant: Michal Bilas

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Okresní soud v Cheb — Interpretation of Articles 13(1), 24 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction in insurance matters — Action seeking the payment of an insurance premium by the policyholder, domiciled in a different Member State from the insurer — Defence of the policyholder’s case as to substance in the forum of the insurer’s domicile.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the court seised, where the rules in Section 3 of Chapter II of that regulation were not complied with, must declare itself to have jurisdiction where the defendant enters an appearance and does not contest that court’s jurisdiction, since entering an appearance in that way amounts to a tacit prorogation of jurisdiction.


(1)  OJ C 141, 20.06.2009.
Case T-233/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2010195EN.01003001.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/30





Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Nike International Ltd v OHIM — Intermar Simanto Nahmias (JUMPMAN)
(Case T-233/10)
2010/C 195/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, USA) (represented by: M. De Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intermar Simanto Nahmias (Individual Company) (Istanbul, Turkey)

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 11 March 2010 in case R 738/2009-1, as far as the opposition decision No B 1326299 has been upheld for all the contested goods;










—


Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and










—


Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.





Pleas in law and main arguments


Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘JUMPMAN’, for goods in class 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2657489 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 2752145 of the word mark ‘JUMP’, for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all of the contested goods and rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 215/2010 of 5 March 2010 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements ( OJ L 76, 23.3.2010 )
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal disease, egg, health certificate, import (EU), poultry, poultrymeat, third country, transit, veterinary inspection








L_2010124EN.01001001.xml










20.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 124/10







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) No 215/2010 of 5 March 2010 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 798/2008 laying down a list of third countries, territories, zones or compartments from which poultry and poultry products may be imported into and transit through the Community and the veterinary certification requirements
(
Official Journal of the European Union L 76 of 23 March 2010
)

On page 32, Model veterinary certificate for hatching eggs of poultry other than ratites (HEP), point II.1.6(b), third indent:
for:


                  ‘which is (are) not subject to any animal health restriction;’,

read:


                  ‘within a 10 km radius of which, including, where appropriate, the territory of a neighbouring country, there has been no outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza or Newcastle disease for at least the previous 30 days;’.
Case C-308/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Protection arrangements before a habitat is placed on the list of sites of Community importance — Article 12(4) — Project for upgrading a country road)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, biotope, country road, environmental protection, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2010179EN.01000302.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-308/08) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Protection arrangements before a habitat is placed on the list of sites of Community importance - Article 12(4) - Project for upgrading a country road)
(2010/C 179/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice on 13 January 2005 in Case C-117/03 and on 14 September 2006 in Case C-244/05, and the obligations stemming from Article 12(4) of that directive — Project for improvement of the rural path from Villamanrique de la Condesa (Seville) to El Rocio (Huelva)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.
Case C-158/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Non-civilian personnel in public authorities — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, civil service, civilian personnel, public administration








C_2010179EN.01001202.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-158/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Non-civilian personnel in public authorities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
(2010/C 179/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Martinez del Peral Cagigal and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(3) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) and Article 18(a) of Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) maintained by Article 27(1) of Directive 2003/88, read in conjunction with Annex I, Part B, of the same directive — Non-civilian personnel in public authorities

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in respect of non-civilian personnel in public authorities, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(3) of that directive;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 180 of 1.8.2009.
Case C-228/09: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 — Taxable amount — Sale of a car — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Poland, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, basis of tax assessment, motor vehicle, motor vehicle industry








C_2010195EN.01000201.xml










17.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/2





Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
(Case C-228/09) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 - Taxable amount - Sale of a car - Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty applicable to non-registered cars)
2010/C 195/02
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Dowgielewicz, M. Jarosz and A. Rutkowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 78, 79, 83 and 86 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Sale of a motor vehicle — Inclusion in the taxable amount of a duty payable on the registration of a vehicle

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the application.










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 233 of 26.9.2009.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate








C_2010131EN.01000201.xml










20.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 131/2





Euro exchange rates (1)

19 May 2010
2010/C 131/02

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2270




JPY


Japanese yen


112,49




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85805




SEK


Swedish krona


9,6075




CHF


Swiss franc


1,4043




ISK


Iceland króna


 




NOK


Norwegian krone


7,8020




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558




CZK


Czech koruna


25,727




EEK


Estonian kroon


15,6466




HUF


Hungarian forint


279,50




LTL


Lithuanian litas


3,4528




LVL


Latvian lats


0,7074




PLN


Polish zloty


4,0830




RON


Romanian leu


4,1965




TRY


Turkish lira


1,9418




AUD


Australian dollar


1,4476




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,2837




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,5725




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8111




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,7137




KRW


South Korean won


1 429,76




ZAR


South African rand


9,5695




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,3772




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,2630




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


11 279,05




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


3,9908




PHP


Philippine peso


56,152




RUB


Russian rouble


37,7800




THB


Thai baht


39,700




BRL


Brazilian real


2,2480




MXN


Mexican peso


15,7547




INR


Indian rupee


56,8780






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-160/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 — Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part — Most-favoured-nation clause — Direct effect — Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, European Community, Greece, VAT, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax system, tropical fruit








C_2010179EN.01001301.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/13






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon
(Case C-160/09) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 - Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part - Most-favoured-nation clause - Direct effect - Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)
(2010/C 179/20)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part (OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1) — Most-favoured-nation clause — Right of an individual seeking the refund of domestic tax to rely on the agreement in order to demonstrate the tax’s incompatibility with the agreement — Banana import regime

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State.


(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.
Case T-223/10: Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, European Regional Development Fund, Italy, Structural Funds, action for annulment (EU)








C_2010179EN.01005601.xml










3.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 179/56






Action brought on 20 May 2010 — Regione Puglia v Commission
(Case T-223/10)
(2010/C 179/95)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Regione Puglia (Bari, Italy) (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


Annul Debit Note No 3241001630 of the European Commission of 26 February 2010.










—


Order the Commission to pay the costs, including a fixed amount for general costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the debit note issued by the Commission on 26 February 2010 in implementation of Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 concerning the cancellation of part of the contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allocated to the operational programme POR Puglia Obiettivo 1 2000-2006. That decision was challenged by the Regione Puglia and by Italy in Case T-84/10 (1) and Case T-117/10 (2) respectively.
In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following pleas:






—


Decision C(2009) 10350 of 22 December 2009 is unlawful, on the basis of the pleas in law and main arguments already relied on in Case T-84/10.










—


Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the procedure for making financial corrections to assistance granted under the Structural Funds, (3) which provides for the application of a rate of interest of 1,5 % above the rate applied by the European Central Bank in its main refinancing operations, since the contested debit note provides that the rate of interest to be charged is that published in the OJEU on 1 April 2010, increased by 3,5 %.






(1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.10, p. 58.

(2)  Not yet published in the OJ.

(3)  OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 13.
Commission Regulation (EU) No 429/2010 of 20 May 2010 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento de Oímbra (PGI))
Date: 2010-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Spain, designation of origin, fruit vegetable, location of production, product designation








L_2010125EN.01000801.xml










21.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 125/8








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 429/2010
of 20 May 2010
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Pemento de Oímbra (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Pemento de Oímbra’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 20 May 2010.


For the Commission


The President

José Manuel BARROSO
            





(1)  
            OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

(2)  
            OJ C 223, 16.9.2009, p. 26.




ANNEX
Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN
Pemento de Oímbra (PGI)